5 ms·

That Nixon character sounds so evil. How does one decide to veto the clean water act?

by kubb 4y ago

Spooky23 4y ago
Jobs baby. What’s the big deal about 10 feet of poop in the East River? How many chemical workers should lose their livelihood for some oysters? Coastal elites eat oysters, real men eat steak.
andy_ppp 4y ago
If the money is right a lot of bad decisions can seem obvious to a certain type of person.
arlcode 4y ago
According to this contemporary article he thought it was too expensive and could result in inflation and higher taxes [1] My take: Arguments never change in politics. I'll never understand why spending lots of money on military or company profits (aka the economy) is always prudent but improving the live of ordinary joe through quite cheap measures needs to be evaluated in great detail to not waste a single cent. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/18/archives/president-vetoes-clean-water-bill-nixon-acts-despite-strong.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/18/archives/president-vetoes...
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex
- edwnj 4y ago
  [dead]
- veltas 4y ago
  Poorest people are hardest hit by inflation. The system is rigged from both ends, really. Sometimes it's conscientious to avoid inflation.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Inflation last year wasn’t evenly distributed: it affected things like new cars and fuel especially badly so it affected middle class households more than poor people using transit who’d never been able to lock themselves into a gas-dependent lifestyle or afford inefficient vanity vehicles. A surprising percentage of these arguments go like that where something is billed as uneconomical because it reduces waste, and the people pushing against it are backed the industries which benefit from that waste. We shouldn’t be cavalier about inflation but we really have to keep in mind that pollution is often related to highly-profitable externalities which might be the most cheapest option because under true cost is being subsidized by everyone else (for example, reducing emissions has usually correlated with huge reductions in healthcare costs).
    - antiterra 4y ago
      Food costs have increased dramatically for a number of people, so the idea that car-free people were largely unaffected doesn’t really play out. While you could blame a lot of this on externalities like an ‘inefficient’ food supply, or people just not being happy enough with beans and rice, the situation is a real challenge for lower income earners. Also, dismissing cars as ‘vanity’ items is likely not to resonate broadly. While self-branding is a thing, some people just genuinely like the cars they can and aspire to buy. I love the inefficient cars I own, and the vast majority of people who know me have no idea or interest that I own them. If anything, vanity dictates humility in my circles. I also get negative responses on HN for owning ~500hp ICE cars (although my cumulative emissions are lower than ever due to reduced driving.)
      - acdha 4y ago
        > Food costs have increased dramatically for a number of people, so the idea that car-free people were largely unaffected doesn’t really play out. This not a claim I made. Fuel costs are obviously going to affect most of the economy but note that I said “especially badly” — that’s because many Americans live in areas which were designed only for car travel, and if you live in one of those areas you don’t have a choice about buying a car when your current one dies because you can’t function without one. When cars are selling way above the previous market rates, that means your costs are either unaffected (driving a car with plenty of life left) or massively inflated (when the dealer is telling you it’ll be 18 months unless you’re paying 20% over). This shows up in other areas but with different outcomes: for example, beef production is dependent on fuel costs. When that goes up, many people will switch to a different protein because there’s almost no cost to doing so. Same underlying problem, completely different level of impact. > Also, dismissing cars as ‘vanity’ items is likely not to resonate broadly. While self-branding is a thing, some people just genuinely like the cars they can and aspire to buy. I grew up in Southern California suburbs, you don’t need to explain car culture to me. If you note, however, my comment referred to “inefficient vanity vehicles”. If you really like having a sports car, that’s fine as long as you treat it like a hobby and can afford it (a friend of mine joked that he had a BMW M3 habit and should’ve saved money by switching to illegal drugs). I was referring to the much larger group of people who make financial stretches to have a late model SUV or luxury sedan because that’s the image they’re aiming for, even if they’re leasing it to make the numbers work at all. If you remember over the summer when the local TV News couldn’t run enough stories about gas prices, notice how it was always some dude putting 20 gallons of premium into a huge truck or SUV. People who are actually poor don’t buy those because everything about them costs more than they can spend, which is why I mentioned that distinction.
- acdha 4y ago
  One of the really interesting things is how people can personally see the benefits but still repeat those arguments. I have some relatives who are classic Orange County Republicans. They personally remember when the air quality in Los Angeles was so bad that they couldn’t see their neighbors’ houses across the street, and they definitely were around for all of the people arguing that emissions laws were going to destroy California’s economy. You can have these surreal conversations where they acknowledge that the opposite happened, but any further improvements will definitely destroy the economy. This is especially weird when it comes to fire prevention which is the actual biggest threat to property values where they live.
  - arlcode 4y ago
    It's quite sad that people (including me obviously) everywhere tend to be very set in their ways because every once in a while we, as a society, achieve amazing things in some areas due to the circumstances being really bad or because the political machine is focusing elsewhere. Not every problem can be solved this way (sometimes the 'big discussions' are really needed) but many smaller, more technical issues, can be attacked successfully if there is no immediate political gain.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Should be noted the 1970s were marred with economic turmoil and inflation shocks. This would have been essentially just before the 1973 oil crisis. The United States in general and New York City in particular wasn't doing too hot in the 1970s. I think it's hard to understate quite how bad things were[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkhD-2cWwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkhD-2cWwY
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Hard to overstate. But they were bad because of irrational choices, not despite them.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      > Hard too overstate. to > But they were bad because of irrational choices, not despite them. Eh, I think a lot of the choices were rational given the available information and understanding at the time.
- vondur 4y ago
  Well, I guess he was sorta right. Inflation in the 70’s averaged around 8% per year. A big chunk of it was energy prices starting with the Oil embargo.
- RajT88 4y ago
  > improving the live of ordinary joe through quite cheap measures needs to be evaluated in great detail to not waste a single cent. Cost is always what politicians use to avoid having to say they just don't like something for ideological reasons. A related technique is "Constitutional Concerns".
michaelteter 4y ago
You mean the same guy who prolonged the Vietnam war for his own political gain? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vi... "Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC." I would say "beyond evil".
- bboygravity 4y ago
  And then there was the Watergate scandal. And the letting go of the gold standard (whether this is evil is debatable).
  - euroderf 4y ago
    The government of France kind of forced his hand. They were buying up gold at the official price.
- refurb 4y ago
  That article is pure fantasy. The South didn't need any help walking away from a peace deal in '68. Hell, they walked away from the peace deal in '72 and only signed because Nixon told them the US was leaving regardless. And there was no peace deal in '68 with the North. The North wasn't even interested in negotiating until a couple years after Nixon got into office. And funny how Nixon gets blamed for "prolonging" a war he never started. How about blame JFK and LBJ for starting and escalating it into a massive conflict?
  - michaelteter 4y ago
    So this investigation, including the tape recordings referenced, are fantasy? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 Perhaps it's easier to believe this about Nixon given his other documented crimes. Or you can just browse the transcripts here to get an idea of what he was willing to do and what his motivations were for making decisions. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/watergate-trial-tapes https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/watergate-trial-tapes
hackernewds 4y ago
Because even naming bills has little to do with the content, the text can be superfluous, poor implementation and unworthy tradeoffs A la Patriot Act and Inflation Reduction Act
- stephen_g 4y ago
  While that's true for some bills, it's a strange comment on an article showing how the "Clean Water Act" has apparently been wildly successful cleaning up waterways around New York and causing a huge improvement in the health of these ecosystems and a massive resurgence in marine life...
BlueTemplar 4y ago
Not sure what displeased him about this law, but last I checked, he was one of the most environment-minded US presidents, famously creating the Environment Protection Agency ?
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  People have a hard time grappling with people not being uniformly good or bad across all axis.
gradschool 4y ago
> That Nixon character sounds so evil. How does one decide to veto the clean water act? On the other hand, Nixon created the environmental protection agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA

That Nixon character sounds so evil. How does one decide to veto the clean water act?

by kubb 4y ago

That Nixon character sounds so evil. How does one decide to veto the clean water act?

Jobs baby. What’s the big deal about 10 feet of poop in the East River? How many chemical workers should lose their livelihood for some oysters? Coastal elites eat oysters, real men eat steak.

andy_ppp 4y ago

If the money is right a lot of bad decisions can seem obvious to a certain type of person.

arlcode 4y ago

According to this contemporary article he thought it was too expensive and could result in inflation and higher taxes [1] My take: Arguments never change in politics. I'll never understand why spending lots of money on military or company profits (aka the economy) is always prudent but improving the live of ordinary joe through quite cheap measures needs to be evaluated in great detail to not waste a single cent. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/18/archives/president-vetoes-clean-water-bill-nixon-acts-despite-strong.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/10/18/archives/president-vetoes...

quickthrower2 4y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex
edwnj 4y ago
[dead]
veltas 4y ago
Poorest people are hardest hit by inflation. The system is rigged from both ends, really. Sometimes it's conscientious to avoid inflation.
- acdha 4y ago
  Inflation last year wasn’t evenly distributed: it affected things like new cars and fuel especially badly so it affected middle class households more than poor people using transit who’d never been able to lock themselves into a gas-dependent lifestyle or afford inefficient vanity vehicles. A surprising percentage of these arguments go like that where something is billed as uneconomical because it reduces waste, and the people pushing against it are backed the industries which benefit from that waste. We shouldn’t be cavalier about inflation but we really have to keep in mind that pollution is often related to highly-profitable externalities which might be the most cheapest option because under true cost is being subsidized by everyone else (for example, reducing emissions has usually correlated with huge reductions in healthcare costs).
  - antiterra 4y ago
    Food costs have increased dramatically for a number of people, so the idea that car-free people were largely unaffected doesn’t really play out. While you could blame a lot of this on externalities like an ‘inefficient’ food supply, or people just not being happy enough with beans and rice, the situation is a real challenge for lower income earners. Also, dismissing cars as ‘vanity’ items is likely not to resonate broadly. While self-branding is a thing, some people just genuinely like the cars they can and aspire to buy. I love the inefficient cars I own, and the vast majority of people who know me have no idea or interest that I own them. If anything, vanity dictates humility in my circles. I also get negative responses on HN for owning ~500hp ICE cars (although my cumulative emissions are lower than ever due to reduced driving.)
    - acdha 4y ago
      > Food costs have increased dramatically for a number of people, so the idea that car-free people were largely unaffected doesn’t really play out. This not a claim I made. Fuel costs are obviously going to affect most of the economy but note that I said “especially badly” — that’s because many Americans live in areas which were designed only for car travel, and if you live in one of those areas you don’t have a choice about buying a car when your current one dies because you can’t function without one. When cars are selling way above the previous market rates, that means your costs are either unaffected (driving a car with plenty of life left) or massively inflated (when the dealer is telling you it’ll be 18 months unless you’re paying 20% over). This shows up in other areas but with different outcomes: for example, beef production is dependent on fuel costs. When that goes up, many people will switch to a different protein because there’s almost no cost to doing so. Same underlying problem, completely different level of impact. > Also, dismissing cars as ‘vanity’ items is likely not to resonate broadly. While self-branding is a thing, some people just genuinely like the cars they can and aspire to buy. I grew up in Southern California suburbs, you don’t need to explain car culture to me. If you note, however, my comment referred to “inefficient vanity vehicles”. If you really like having a sports car, that’s fine as long as you treat it like a hobby and can afford it (a friend of mine joked that he had a BMW M3 habit and should’ve saved money by switching to illegal drugs). I was referring to the much larger group of people who make financial stretches to have a late model SUV or luxury sedan because that’s the image they’re aiming for, even if they’re leasing it to make the numbers work at all. If you remember over the summer when the local TV News couldn’t run enough stories about gas prices, notice how it was always some dude putting 20 gallons of premium into a huge truck or SUV. People who are actually poor don’t buy those because everything about them costs more than they can spend, which is why I mentioned that distinction.
acdha 4y ago
One of the really interesting things is how people can personally see the benefits but still repeat those arguments. I have some relatives who are classic Orange County Republicans. They personally remember when the air quality in Los Angeles was so bad that they couldn’t see their neighbors’ houses across the street, and they definitely were around for all of the people arguing that emissions laws were going to destroy California’s economy. You can have these surreal conversations where they acknowledge that the opposite happened, but any further improvements will definitely destroy the economy. This is especially weird when it comes to fire prevention which is the actual biggest threat to property values where they live.
- arlcode 4y ago
  It's quite sad that people (including me obviously) everywhere tend to be very set in their ways because every once in a while we, as a society, achieve amazing things in some areas due to the circumstances being really bad or because the political machine is focusing elsewhere. Not every problem can be solved this way (sometimes the 'big discussions' are really needed) but many smaller, more technical issues, can be attacked successfully if there is no immediate political gain.
marginalia_nu 4y ago
Should be noted the 1970s were marred with economic turmoil and inflation shocks. This would have been essentially just before the 1973 oil crisis. The United States in general and New York City in particular wasn't doing too hot in the 1970s. I think it's hard to understate quite how bad things were[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkhD-2cWwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkhD-2cWwY
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  Hard to overstate. But they were bad because of irrational choices, not despite them.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    > Hard too overstate. to > But they were bad because of irrational choices, not despite them. Eh, I think a lot of the choices were rational given the available information and understanding at the time.
vondur 4y ago
Well, I guess he was sorta right. Inflation in the 70’s averaged around 8% per year. A big chunk of it was energy prices starting with the Oil embargo.
RajT88 4y ago
> improving the live of ordinary joe through quite cheap measures needs to be evaluated in great detail to not waste a single cent. Cost is always what politicians use to avoid having to say they just don't like something for ideological reasons. A related technique is "Constitutional Concerns".

michaelteter 4y ago

You mean the same guy who prolonged the Vietnam war for his own political gain? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vi... "Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC." I would say "beyond evil".

bboygravity 4y ago
And then there was the Watergate scandal. And the letting go of the gold standard (whether this is evil is debatable).
- euroderf 4y ago
  The government of France kind of forced his hand. They were buying up gold at the official price.
refurb 4y ago
That article is pure fantasy. The South didn't need any help walking away from a peace deal in '68. Hell, they walked away from the peace deal in '72 and only signed because Nixon told them the US was leaving regardless. And there was no peace deal in '68 with the North. The North wasn't even interested in negotiating until a couple years after Nixon got into office. And funny how Nixon gets blamed for "prolonging" a war he never started. How about blame JFK and LBJ for starting and escalating it into a massive conflict?
- michaelteter 4y ago
  So this investigation, including the tape recordings referenced, are fantasy? https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668 Perhaps it's easier to believe this about Nixon given his other documented crimes. Or you can just browse the transcripts here to get an idea of what he was willing to do and what his motivations were for making decisions. https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/watergate-trial-tapes https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/watergate-trial-tapes

hackernewds 4y ago

Because even naming bills has little to do with the content, the text can be superfluous, poor implementation and unworthy tradeoffs A la Patriot Act and Inflation Reduction Act

stephen_g 4y ago
While that's true for some bills, it's a strange comment on an article showing how the "Clean Water Act" has apparently been wildly successful cleaning up waterways around New York and causing a huge improvement in the health of these ecosystems and a massive resurgence in marine life...

BlueTemplar 4y ago

Not sure what displeased him about this law, but last I checked, he was one of the most environment-minded US presidents, famously creating the Environment Protection Agency ?

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
People have a hard time grappling with people not being uniformly good or bad across all axis.

gradschool 4y ago

> That Nixon character sounds so evil. How does one decide to veto the clean water act? On the other hand, Nixon created the environmental protection agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPA