Republicans in America want to close EPA
 

I don't know much about this, I just want to see what other people know, but I put it in debts because it's political.

All I know is ive heard a lot about republicans saying they want to shutdown the Environmental protection agency if they win house and senate in congress, because they say it will help the economy.

The only reason they're saying that is because it will allow them to do whatever the hell they want with dirty energy.

They need to die, preferably painfully.

The economy this, the economy that. Give nature the priority for once, congress.

No **** the party in bed with big energy is going to want to do the bidding of their corporate masters.

I always like to wonder what people who want to gut the EPA are thinking about what they are going to breath if the air is polluted, or what they will drink when the water is full of fracking fluid. We all live in the same closed system you dumbasses, any polluting you do is going to some back and bite you in the ass, too.

This really makes me sad..:(
The environment is our lifeblood.. People in positions of Authority only seem to look at the short term consequences of destroying the environment such as fueling the economy and creating housing blocks..The long term consequences such as lesser air quality, increased potential for land and mudslides, species becoming extinct and humans and other animals having no connection to nature anymore are so severe..

They've stopped making any sense at all.

They've asked small businesses to stop hiring to damage the economy too. (as a result of a threat made to the president)

I don't get how closing the EPA helps the economy either? Sure, the largest of businesses would benefit, but I can't see the smaller ones benefiting much. Also, I would think the EPA would create middle class jobs to, to run the whole organization?

Ecology is bad for business.

What else can be said?

I just dont get why they would want to close it down, when the EPA could open up jobs such as having people clean up litter, pollution, garbage, or other Eco-friendly stuff I'm job form. I mean the government would have to pay the people doing the work, but it creates jobs at least temporarily.

I just don't understand how the EPA is such a threat to the economy. It seems to me that republicans wanting to disband the EPA is a show of "this is what our part stands for! RA-RA-RA" but it doesn't actually do much productiveness.

From what I understand of American politics, it is naive to expect productivity from the Republicans.

*Who* is actually saying that they want to do this? Republicans talking about shutting down the EPA sounds like some lefty's hypothetical "dream scenario" for a campaign platform turned rumor.

Apparently a lot of the GOP front runners claim they would shutdown the EPA if they took office

:rolleyes:

(Just as it is naive to expect sense from the Tories.)

There aren't many GOP frontrunners, and I can't find anything about any of them saying such a thing. :S Got a source? Of course, people say a lot of wacky stuff in politics, but this particular claim just seems inflammatory. Even if it were the desire of one particular person, a President can't just delete an entire government agency with an executive order anyway, and I can't imagine such a thing gaining any kind of broad support.

I think most Americans would balk at the idea of closing the EPA, even if they themselves are not environmentally conscious. It's one of those things that just "sounds bad," even if the EPA is a consistent target of government accountability investigations as a result of doing things like granting Energy Star logos to fake products, including a gasoline-powered alarm clock! Good grief.

GOP frontrunner Rick Perry promotes teaching creationism as a science...

Yup, I don't see anything grand about the GOP right now. Maybe old and outdated.

Politics always attracts nutcases, and it's because of how the US situation is set up that those nutcases are part of mainstream parties instead of fringe ones. That said, I've seen all sorts of such things hinted at before, and nothing ever comes of them. They do it to get themselves into the headlines.

Politics are all about the votes as much as economy is all about the money.

HNM pointed out a hidden truth: if you get people to talk about you, you're making a huge campaign without spending a penny. It's all about the headlines, and whether you believe or not in what you said you can always eat your own words at time.

But even if the promise or threat of closing EPA is real and if the cause they're using as a justification is that it harms the economy, we could also cut out social aid, public education, health care system (the little that's left in the US) and if we got really extreme, suppress working rights in order to rise productivity.

But then, votes.

No, politicians don't give a damn about morals or social or ecological impact. If a measure will make you unpopular, you avoid it. Otherwise, carry on; and this is the case with EPA (safe for green minorities people aren't concerned about the importance it holds or don't really care, since any measure against it won't affect them personally).

I don't know how talking about closing the EPA would help someone's votes exactly :S But then again, I all around avoid politics and find it very hard to understand generally. If someone is being talked about negatively, that shouldn't help a campaign though.

The general public isn't the only target in an election, you can also campaign to get support from political factions, territories, and corporations. I bet the Koch brothers have been taken in count on this political move or, supposing much, that they are financing a great part of the campaign.

Oh, then I guess they'll support the campaign whether or not it's being talked badly about among the general public.

...which is why I, as a socially liberal but fiscally conservative freethinker, seldom find a viable candidate on the ballot. :( I see stuff like this, and then I see my heavily democratic state and local governments dropping $10M on pedestrian bridges and bizarre sculptures for parks in the middle of a recession and I ask myself, "Why do I bother voting?" *keeps saving for ticket to Pandora*

-Aaron

GOP Rep.-Elect Bill Flores: House Republicans Want To Get EPA To 'Shut Down On These Bunny Trails'

Here's on link I found googling Aaron. IDK much about it, I've just heard about it in the news, and read a short article about it in the Columbus Dispatch, but can't remember any names.

Well, first off, the Huffington Post is *hugely* liberal, so I wouldn't accept their read of something like this without my political distortion filter firmly engaged. That said, I don't read this as "shut down the EPA," but rather as "don't impose tough new climate regulations in the middle of a recession." Still grossly negligent thinking, of course.

All kidding aside, Aaron brings up a very good point. This isn't the problem of the Republican Party, per se, but of the two-party system and the emphasis on party loyalty that's ingrained in American politics. There are social conservatives, economic conservatives, social liberals, economic liberals, and every in between and beyond. A lot of times, an economic conservative has to reconcile with social conservatives in order to gain more support due to party affiliation.

The problem with this two-party system and party loyalty is that it severely limits flexibility, and results in the current cluster**** of a political gridlock in Congress right now. Both the Republicans and the Democrats contribute to this problem. For example, I would identify myself as mostly social liberal and economic conservative, with some deviation in certain aspects. As Aaron mentioned, this makes it very difficult for me to vote, because this convoluted political system and culture has left me between a rock and a hard place.

It's easy to point fingers and have someone to blame, but politics aren't that simple, and it's certainly not as black and white as we often make of it.

That's the thing, I have no idea which news sources are liberal or conservative, or unbiased. I know fox news is hugely conservative and CNN is fairly liberal, but that's it.

Exactly. Americans talk about 'their party' like it's their nationality or something - I'm convinced that many vote whichever way without any real understanding of any of the issues or policies (to be fair, that goes for many voters here too, but less so, as well as with a far wider selection of parties to choose from). The US political system seriously needs an extra 6 or 7 parties, so the lunatics (from both sides) can go there and never gain any votes.

There are already alternative parties, but as they say, it's throwing your vote to the dustbin. They're always a minority and they seldom get representation.

HNM, we read a study in my government class that showed that people mostly have 1 key issue, and they pick the party and vote with whatever party is in support for their main issue. Party base voting is slowly dying as independent voters become a larger and larger percent of the population. Which is good :)

ps: this just made me realize, this will be the first year I get to vote.

Even if the number of independent voters are increasing, the dominance of the two-party means that when you vote for the party that supports your issue, you are also supporting other issues that you may not be in favor of.

In my opinion, politicians shouldn't take all of the blame. This is a problem with American political culture, and politicians who don't conform to it will likely not have power or even voted to office. That's not to say they're innocent, but in many cases, they are also stuck between a rock and a hard place.

The following link may offer some insight on American voting behavior.
Party Loyalty Primary Factor in Democratic Vote in 2010

IMO, people who don't bother to learn about who they are voting for just shouldn't vote. You can't completely rely on a party title to make such an important decision -.- IMO the electoral college is also a piece of ****, but that's an entirely different issue.

I believe you mean "Welcome to Society." ;)

Aye! I saw the trees today and they were beautiful.

I completely agree with this. This past election day, I decided not to vote. The previous year I did. Why didn't I vote this year? I had no idea who was running, what their stances are or what their voting records were.

To make such an uninformed vote would be irresponsible IMO. And as such I abstained.