Out of Pod Experience

The problems with the EPA are the same problems with any regulatory body.

The rules and regulations are not applied evenly to all parties.

Increased regulations always have and always will increase costs. This reduces competition. This reduction of competition gives more market share to larger companies/corporations. They in turn use that extra wealth to capture the regulations and corrupt the power held by the regulatory body.

Consider, as it is now, if company X pollutes the ground water, and some of this pollution seeps into your adjacent property, so long as the pollution is under a certain amount, you as the property owner, have no recourse at all. When the pollution goes over some amount, the company is fined and the government collects the fine, not you.

If on the other hand private property were protected, you as the property owner, could collect damages for even tiny amounts of pollution.

I find the OPs example curious. Working with dangerous substances, regulated by the EPA, so as to keep some people safe. Those dangerous substances are needed by a machine that has the purpose of killing other people. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Thankfuly we have government to make sense of it all for us.

And all of these complicated laws and loop holes and legal procedures, you think they are there for the benefit of the little guy? What you are citing is exactly what I am pointing out. The laws, the rules, the myriad complex regulations and legal procedures are there to keep the little guy down and unable to do much about it.



Your head leads you to believe this based on what? Just a guess? Because some state funded history professor told you standard oil was an evil monopoly? "Oh no, look a monopoly, in order to maintain market share, they had to lower prices more and more and more, oh the horror, lower prices for everyone!"

There is monopoly created by the force of government, and there is an attempt at monopoly created by providing customers what they want at a fair market value. One involves the use of force, the other does not.

Pick.

You don't need a big bunch of fancy quotes to present your ideas. Just a few well known axioms, deduction and decent grammar is all it takes.

"Going too far in either direction" is an opinion, and a soft one at that. What is too far? How about this as "too far": If an idea, regulation, law, what have you, requires that some one use force, or the threat of force, then that is too far.

Are you your self willing to use the gun to enforce your ideas? Would you pull the trigger or throw someone in a cage your self? If not, why not? And do you want to try and make the claim that you have the right to ask others to use force on your behalf?

Oh and just to point out, a corporation is a legal fiction defined and chartered by ... you got it, government. So don't waste your time barking up the wrong tree. :)

True the EPA made all these strict rules to prevent polution. The downside was it made manufacturing so expensive everything sold in the USA is now made in other countries where rules are not so strict. Who needs factory jobs anyways?

This is a good example of good intentions not working as planned.

I like to say: NAFTA.

Or: "Let's export our jobs and polution to countries that are more desperate and less caring!"

NAFTA really opened up the flood gates.

And just because 'the people' want something, doesn't make it good for them - or for the folks on the recieving end, either. Those poor bastards got our jobs - and even more of our polution.

That's what politicians are *supposed* to do - Make *intelligent* choices on behalf of 'the people.' Of course, that's an impossible dream, especially in America, but one can hope that the particularly *bad* calls can be avoided.
Not in this case, obviously.

Good old Fox new reporting smh. They try to say that it is Obama's EPA even though the same report said this guys plan to change the DNA of Capitalism started under the Bush administration. Just like all organizations there are corrupt individuals that need to be filtered out and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

They also said the gas companies are crying over crushing regulations and which is supposed to make the reader feel that their profits are hurting.

LMAO. What difference does it make that the report came from Fox?

Yes it's been Obama's EPA for coming up on six years now, and yes, the guy went crazy during the Bush years. If you're trying to say that this is somehow a Fox attack piece on Obama, you need to try harder. The article clearly states the "smoking gun" quote came from the Institute for Energy Research, and clearly states that organization's bias. The media always quotes the complainers. That's standard, run of the mill journalism.

Anyway, thought it was a funny article about an EPA guy that popped up same time as this thread. Wasn't trying to penetrate anyone's tinfoil hat!

Of course Fox is biased to the right. Just like ABC. CBS, NBC, CNN, and pretty much every other network is biased to the left. News is not "true" or "fact". I might contain both but those are just spices in the food they feed you.

The best way I can describe news is it's like one of those "Based on a true story" movies. If it's a movie about a boy that got hit by a car the boy actually got hit by a car but everything else was made up and added for dramatization purposes.

That is funny