8 ms·

Like with many things the goal may be bipartisan, but how to get there will not be Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, o

Like with many things the goal may be bipartisan, but how to get there will not be Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, or taxes businesses Democrats will reject any funding methods the come with strings attached to reduce or pull funding from other programs, or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich" So with such an impasse nothing will get done

luddit3 3y ago
Seems like all those corporations should be paying for cleaning up their mess. Why would we pull funding from other programs. That would be socializing the the cost while the few reap the reward.
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
What would be more productive, then, would be awareness campaigns for filters that can be bought and used at home to reduce said chemicals and ideally dispose of them in ecologically safe ways.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  At the end of the day I do not believe this is a national matter in the first place, No where in the Constitution does congress have the authority to regulate drinking water in the first place, outside the bastardization of the commerce clause So it should be left up to state regulators to set what they feel are the best for their states. EPA could play a role in ensuring One state does not pollute another state, but there are and should be limits on what is a "federal issue" even if people today seem to think everything should be under the umbrella of the federal government.
  - pierat 3y ago
    You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. "General welfare" is also a way that the EPA can run, and actually mandate strong changes to reverse massive pollution, and act strongly against climate change. Having high humidity and heat can and will make areas unlivable for humans. (And I do agree that the commerce clause being used everywhere is a load of garbage in much of its applications.) Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case >>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213
      - pierat 3y ago
        You were also quoting what amounts to 1700's blog articles (Federalist) as evidence of an originalist thought. And I plainly read what was said in the constitution. You seem to be the one re-interpreting the document based on your own world-view.
- e1g 3y ago
  If those filters are to be subsidized, we're back at the impasse of "how is this funded?". If the filters are not subsidized, whoever approves the campaign will get kicked out for making the disadvantaged drink dirty water and serving the rich who own the filter manufacturers. /s, I think, but I'm not sure.
tedivm 3y ago
> or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich" Your bias is showing a bit there.
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  Pointing out historically demonstrable facts isn't bias.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  My bias is Anti-government. The best government is the smallest government, and I believe in strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8 powers. That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more... I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
  - jorvi 3y ago
    > The best government is the smallest government Yes you can clearly see that by the highest quality of life being in countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore.. all countries known for their small government bent. > and how we always need to tax them more... Because the wealth gap has been growing ever larger > I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club Or perhaps they’ve realized a lawyer that earns 300k a year still is working class? It’s laughable how the same, folds-like-a-lawnchair arguments always keep being trotted out, as if they haven’t been proven wrong a million times over.
  - pierat 3y ago
    Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".
alldayeveryday 3y ago
[dead]
oasisbob 3y ago
> Like with many things the goal may be bipartisan, but how to get there will not be Why not the existing EPA Superfund program? Discovering pollution from industry decades after the contamination took place isn't a new problem.
bdcravens 3y ago
> Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, or taxes businesses It goes deeper than that. Much of the narrative rejects the validity of claims, or files solutions in the "woke" category, to be fought out of principle.

luddit3 3y ago

Seems like all those corporations should be paying for cleaning up their mess. Why would we pull funding from other programs. That would be socializing the the cost while the few reap the reward.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

What would be more productive, then, would be awareness campaigns for filters that can be bought and used at home to reduce said chemicals and ideally dispose of them in ecologically safe ways.

phpisthebest 3y ago
At the end of the day I do not believe this is a national matter in the first place, No where in the Constitution does congress have the authority to regulate drinking water in the first place, outside the bastardization of the commerce clause So it should be left up to state regulators to set what they feel are the best for their states. EPA could play a role in ensuring One state does not pollute another state, but there are and should be limits on what is a "federal issue" even if people today seem to think everything should be under the umbrella of the federal government.
- pierat 3y ago
  You ignored my other comment regarding how clean water is indeed a Constitutionally mandated power. Having a safe and secure access and usage of water is definitely part of the "general welfare" within Art 1 Sec 8. And no, water doesn't have to be explicitly listed. "General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. "General welfare" is also a way that the EPA can run, and actually mandate strong changes to reverse massive pollution, and act strongly against climate change. Having high humidity and heat can and will make areas unlivable for humans. (And I do agree that the commerce clause being used everywhere is a load of garbage in much of its applications.) Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare"
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    I already address the wrong interpretation of General Welfare here [1] it is a common tactic by Authoritarians to expand the scope of the federal government to be unlimited, when clearly the purpose of the constitution was to limit the government, If your understanding of that clause is correct then there is no reason to go on and list other powers as literally everything is included in "General Welfare" and the US Federal Governments power is unlimited. That is not the case >>"General welfare" is a much wider term, that can encompass more and more, as minimum humanity standards increase. Ahh your a living document believer, that we should reinterpret the constitution under the lens of how words are used in common usage today, not the original intent of the provisions. I am an orginalist so no I do not agree that General Welfare powers expand as humanities standards increase [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36620213
    - pierat 3y ago
      You were also quoting what amounts to 1700's blog articles (Federalist) as evidence of an originalist thought. And I plainly read what was said in the constitution. You seem to be the one re-interpreting the document based on your own world-view.
e1g 3y ago
If those filters are to be subsidized, we're back at the impasse of "how is this funded?". If the filters are not subsidized, whoever approves the campaign will get kicked out for making the disadvantaged drink dirty water and serving the rich who own the filter manufacturers. /s, I think, but I'm not sure.

tedivm 3y ago

> or that does not excessively and punitively tax business and "the rich" Your bias is showing a bit there.

stronglikedan 3y ago
Pointing out historically demonstrable facts isn't bias.
phpisthebest 3y ago
My bias is Anti-government. The best government is the smallest government, and I believe in strict interpretation of Article 1 Sec 8 powers. That said, where am I wrong, for the last several decades all the Democrats do is talk about how the Rich do not pay their "fair share" never defining what a fair share is.. and how we always need to tax them more... I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club
- jorvi 3y ago
  > The best government is the smallest government Yes you can clearly see that by the highest quality of life being in countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore.. all countries known for their small government bent. > and how we always need to tax them more... Because the wealth gap has been growing ever larger > I have also seen it Move from "millionaires and billionaires" to just billionaires as many of the Democrats in congress entered the millionaire club Or perhaps they’ve realized a lawyer that earns 300k a year still is working class? It’s laughable how the same, folds-like-a-lawnchair arguments always keep being trotted out, as if they haven’t been proven wrong a million times over.
- pierat 3y ago
  Given that in Article 1 Section 8 is the following: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" highlight: "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare" Seems to strongly indicate that clean water, clean food, medical, etc, are part of the "general welfare".

alldayeveryday 3y ago

[dead]

oasisbob 3y ago

> Like with many things the goal may be bipartisan, but how to get there will not be Why not the existing EPA Superfund program? Discovering pollution from industry decades after the contamination took place isn't a new problem.

bdcravens 3y ago

> Republicans will reject any funding methods that add to the national debt, or taxes businesses It goes deeper than that. Much of the narrative rejects the validity of claims, or files solutions in the "woke" category, to be fought out of principle.