HeadLever: The EPA apparently did NOT veot the permit (and they have the power to do so),

FIFM

tenpoundsofcheese: I assume most of the people here are trolling,

Keep posting- we'll get there!

Lord_Baull: tenpoundsofcheese: What are you talking about?

This thread is about job killing regulations.

Says the guy whose Boobies was a deflection about Obama.

And actually this thread is about how easily the Republicans get their talking points re-iterated for them in the national media.

But if the trolls want to get their ass handed to them on the "Regulation = Job Killers" issue there's no point in trying to stop them.

WhyteRaven74: tenpoundsofcheese: why are people defending job killing regulations?

So far no one has pointed out a single such regulation.

Fine. Here's one two: When you can't pay 1,000 10-year old kids 25 cents a day to work in your sweatshop, that's 1,000 10 year old kids without a job. Now think of ALL of the 10-year olds out there. They all need jobs. Remember, 'It's For The Children'.

If we didn't have these silly job killing minimum wage and child labor laws, everybody would have at least 4 jobs.

(Of course that's because we'd all NEED 4 hobs to pay our bills...)

HeadLever: quatchi: It says in the article you linked that the original permit came from the Army Corp of Engineers not the EPA. I think the screw up was that first and foremost. Where was the EPA then? How can the ACE grant these permits without EPA oversight?

The EPA was part of the process, but the the Corps had primary jurisdiction. The EPA apparently did veot the permit (and they have the power to do so), even though the expressed concern. It looks like the EPA screwed up and then tried to fix it by screwing up more.

Looks to me like they screwed up by not exercising their veto option when they had the chance and then tried to fix that screw up by vetoing it after the fact illegally.

Wendy's Chili

Tolerance means not legislating hate against minorities and gays, not agreeing with your every dumbass opinion.

You're a dumbass, not a victim of oppression.

Okay, well I consider myself pretty socially liberal, but I dont advocate hate against people just because their opinions differ than mine.

/also a minority.

tenpoundsofcheese: Jake Havechek: I know it is fark, and that is what one should expect here.

No, it's because you and your ilk have been saying "fark you, I've got mine" for the last 30 years.

I got my job killing regulations? What are you talking about?

This thread is about job killing regulations.

Actually, this thread is about the phrase "job killing regulations". As has been pointed out to you numerous times, no one has produced an actual job killing regulation. You've pointed out an example of an agency making a controversial decision, but not a regulation.

Lando Lincoln: HeadLever: Vegemite: Lando Lincoln: Ask people to point out these "job-killing regulations" and you'll get a "well...you KNOW they're out there..." kind of excuse.

They will probably spout off about EPA regulations and other such things,furthermore . . .

Since you asked:

This case was about a week after the EPA got biatchslapped by the US Supreme Court in the Sackett case. Right now, the courts are doing a good job at keeping the EPA somewhat in line.

That wasn't a regulation. That was a "you're breaking the law." That was the EPA saying that the coal mine in question discharging their runoff into two streams was a violation of the Clean Water Act. The coal mine said, "but...we've got a permit to dump our runoff into those streams! You can't take away a permit after we've already got one!" And the Supreme Court said "hey, it's all good - just let that shiat flow, baby."

It's not like there's any evidence to show that allowing mining runoff to flow into streams has any detrimental effects to a local water supply or anything.

That wasn't the question before the court, unfortunately. The issue was the EPA's unilateral revocation of an issued permit that they had been involved in issuing in the first place.

derpdeederp: Wendy's Chili

Tolerance means not legislating hate against minorities and gays, not agreeing with your every dumbass opinion.

You're a dumbass, not a victim of oppression.

Okay, well I consider myself pretty socially liberal, but I dont advocate hate against people just because their opinions differ than mine.

/also a minority.


I don't see where Wendy advocated hate in her post.

Regulations create jobs.

/Gnash your scurvied gums on that one, trolls

You mean those regulations big business had written into law to cause high barriers to entry for competition?

Or those regulations that prevent businesses from dumping poisons onto the commons and expecting government to clean up the mess?

NeverDrunk23: someonelse: heinekenftw: BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

Yeah, he's killing jobs so hard that unemployment is going down.

He's just biding his time until his second term when he'll take all the jobs and the guns. And unleash tornadoes of gay abortions upon the land.

Its sad that there are people who honestly believe that. Its even more pathetic that people like Bill there pretend to be so stupid to believe it just for attention.

fta

"Overheated political rhetoric based on shaky numbers does little inform the debate, and only serves to distract attention from the other important consequences of the choices that we face."

in other words, we should talk about sandra flukes birth control problem instead of the unemployment numbers.

Lord_Baull
derpdeederp: Wendy's Chili

Tolerance means not legislating hate against minorities and gays, not agreeing with your every dumbass opinion.

You're a dumbass, not a victim of oppression.

Okay, well I consider myself pretty socially liberal, but I dont advocate hate against people just because their opinions differ than mine.

/also a minority.

I don't see where Wendy advocated hate in her post.

She was responding to a comment I made about tolerance in response to Jake Havechek.

Jake Havechek
Every time an EPA haters' kid gets leukemia from toxic industrial runoff, an angel gets its wings.

BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

The facts disagree with your assertion, but you never let that stop you.

NateGrey: tenpoundsofcheese: I assume most of the people here are trolling,

What is this...I dont even...

It's a trap. Get an axe.

Mikey1969: Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Let's see what the actual report has to say about it...

2007: 4
2011: 706

And a large number of those were simply quotes from congressmen.

But OMG, IT'S INCREASED OVER SEVENTEEN THOUSAND PERCENT! sounds so much better.

So are you refuting the math or the overall claim? Your intent is a little cloudy here, did you post before the whole message got downloaded from your masters?

The point is that saying something increased by X% on its own means absolutely nothing. It's in the same category as sensationalist headlines like LETTING YOUR KIDS EAT OTTER POPS TRIPLES THEIR RISK OF GETTING LOU GEHRIG'S DISEASE, then when you look at the actual numbers it's a difference of 1 in 300 million versus 1 in 100 million. The numbers might technically be correct but whoop de farking doo. I'm sure you'd find an even larger increase in the use of the phrase "top 1%". When you start with small numbers you're going to get a large percentage increase.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, there is

Yeah, for the Mine you are correct. For the Sackett case, not so much.

Regarding the mine case, from what you posted, it looks like the EPA fell down on its responsibility and then tried to correct it illegaly. Maybe the EPA could actually start working with the mine and see if they can correct thier screwup by proactive means as opposed to working against them.

Oh I'm sure the mine is enthusiastic to work with the EPA. The coal mining industry is well know for their long term stewardship of the environment.

BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

Not really.

I'd rather have "job killing regulations" than people killing pollution, lead in my paint and melamine in my food.

Well, the Republicans have had defacto veto pow since 2008 in the Senate for all but what, 3 months when the Democrats had 61 votes.

Obama has pledged to review the current regulations, and that just pisses off Republicans, doesn't it? Having to deal with a President that has said "You know what, maybe we can do away with certain regulations*".

Maybe if you didn't tie the dereg to demands for more TAXCUTS!!!!!1 you might be able to get something done? Just a thought here.

*That doesn't mean getting rid of environmental and worker protections just so we can race to the bottom against China.

Lionel Mandrake: BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

You mean the President with 25 straight months of job growth?

But never let facts get in the way of ideology, right?

If we'd had a Republican president every American would have TWO jobs, ample health insurance and 50 cent gas.

Medical Toilet: BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

Now who can argue with that? I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. I'm particulary glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

Not really.


Rrerrrhh.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: The numbers might technically be correct but whoop de farking doo. I'm sure you'd find an even larger increase in the use of the phrase "top 1%".

The top 1% actually exists. "Job Killing Regulations" not so much.

born_yesterday: And unleash tornadoes of gay abortions upon the land.

Not even sure how those work...

Lando Lincoln: That was the EPA saying that the coal mine in question discharging their runoff into two streams was a violation of the Clean Water Act. The coal mine said, "but...we've got a permit to dump our runoff into those streams! You can't take away a permit after we've already got one!" And the Supreme Court said "hey, it's all good - just let that shiat flow, baby."

A few things;
1)The EPA was a part of the ACE Permitting process and did nothing to stop it when they had the chance.
2) They only tried to stop it afterward via a retroactive veto, which is the reasont they were slapped upside the head.
2)It was not the Supreme Court that issued the ruling on this case, it was an Obama-appointed Federal Judge.
3)The Supreme court smackdown was regarding the Sackett Case where the EPA denied a homeowner due process with respect to obtianing a permit to build thier house.

That has to be one of the most scrambled post I have seen for quite some time.

Lando Lincoln: It's not like there's any evidence to show that allowing mining runoff to flow into streams has any detrimental effects to a local water supply or anything.

That is what the NPDES Permitting Process (which the EPA is a part of) is supposed to address.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Hueg_Redd: I'd imagine we have this ugly jerkoff to thank. Some focus group somewhere in bumfarked Kansas got all excited when ol Luntzy said the words "job killing regulations" and here we are.

[cdn.crooksandliars.com image 460x345]

To me, what's amazing about Luntz on Fox News is that they are basically telling the viewers "This is how we are misleading you and bending you to our agenda," yet the idiots still allow themselves to be willfully misled.

And they're doing it by reading directly off the agenda memo sent to them. Link

I mean, Fox News may as well be telling its viewers "hang on, this memo from the GOP came in of things I'm supposed to say. Now let me read it: Obama is... killing jobs. Yes that's it, Obama is killing jobs... with his... hang on, what does that say? Reputation? No regulations, that's it. Obama is killing jobs with regulations... now let's have a discussion about Obama killing jobs with regulations."

RosettaStone: I'd rather have "job killing regulations" than people killing pollution, lead in my paint and melamine in my food.

yeah, you would. Pinko.

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: The point is that saying something increased by X% on its own means absolutely nothing. It's in the same category as sensationalist headlines like LETTING YOUR KIDS EAT OTTER POPS TRIPLES THEIR RISK OF GETTING LOU GEHRIG'S DISEASE, then when you look at the actual numbers it's a difference of 1 in 300 million versus 1 in 100 million. The numbers might technically be correct but whoop de farking doo. I'm sure you'd find an even larger increase in the use of the phrase "top 1%". When you start with small numbers you're going to get a large percentage increase.

So in other words, while everything is 100% correct, you just don't like it personally, and want them to ignore it.

Got it.

Philip Francis Queeg: Oh I'm sure the mine is enthusiastic to work with the EPA. The coal mining industry is well know for their long term stewardship of the environment.

Can't speak for this mine, but around here, many mines have a really good working relationship with the EPA and many of the more reasonable environmental groups as well. The folks that work at the mines out here also love to hunt, fish and recreate in the outdoors, so it is in their best interest to not trash the environment.

That being said, when you have retarded EPA administrators running around saying that his philosophy of enforcement is "kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years," collaboration does not really seem to very important on thier 'to do' list.

Huh. I expected that Billco's Boobies was just the first salvo in a well-prepared, well thought out argument.

I can't believe he just posted once and fled. That's just not like him.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh I'm sure the mine is enthusiastic to work with the EPA. The coal mining industry is well know for their long term stewardship of the environment.

Can't speak for this mine, but around here, many mines have a really good working relationship with the EPA and many of the more reasonable environmental groups as well. The folks that work at the mines out here also love to hunt, fish and recreate in the outdoors, so it is in their best interest to not trash the environment.

That being said, when you have retarded EPA administrators running around saying that his philosophy of enforcement is "kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years," collaboration does not really seem to very important on thier 'to do' list.

Apparently they don't care enough about the environment to stop destroying those streams, do they?

Lando Lincoln: The EPA wasn't "killing jobs with regulations" on this one.

It appears they were attempting to use the regulations that are incorporated in the NPDES Permitting process in order to justify thier veto of the permit. They just looks like they messed up and didn't enforce the regulations at the appropriate time.

meat0918: Well, the Republicans have had defacto veto pow since 2008 in the Senate for all but what, 3 months when the Democrats had 61 votes.

Between the Franken's seating being delayed and the health problems of Kennedy and Byrd I do not know of a single day in session where the Democrats had 60 votes. They never had 61.

Philip Francis Queeg: Apparently they don't care enough about the environment to stop destroying those streams, do they?

It is (and always will be)a cost v impact type analysis. Sometimes human activity will impact nature. Can't get around that. You just have to do what you can to mitigate and minimize these impacts while conforming to the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and the various other regulations that are in place.

BillCo: That is because we have a job killing president.

Actually the data suggests that it's quite the opposite.

Unless you like to adjust when those dates of being sworn in from 'the actual dates' to 'when you want them to be'.

Lando Lincoln: The fact that the Army Corps of Engineers said that it was okay for the coal mine to dump crap into streams doesn't make it right.

If you had to have everyone agree that a certain action was 'right' before proceeding, the wheel would still not be invented yet. There is a process for these projects that attempts to utilize the resource but also minimize and mitigate its impacts. It is a balancing act. Out here in the west on public land, so long as a mine can meet all the permit requirements, the federal goverment can't stop them. See the Mining Act of 1872.

You mean that when a major party picks a catch-phrase and uses it unrelentingly, instances of that phrase sky-rock in the news? You don't say!

While I am on the conservative side, I am not supportive of abolishing the EPA. They do serve an important balace and we do need to take steps to minimize our impacts. However, there needs to be a balance. I wish that there was more groups that would work 'together' instead of 'against'. This goes for all parties; corporations, government regulators, environmental groups and other public entities.

The fact of the matter is that the high cost of mining here in the states has created a boom in other parts of the world where environmental safeguards are pretty much non-existent. If you want to know just how much we import as opposed to mining ourselves, go look see page 6 of this report. Sadly, for many environmentallist, they really don't care. So long as they don't have to deal with the impacts, they don't care that a mine in China is putting out ten times the pollutants that a simliar mine here would. Ironically, these folks usually have more metal rings, studs, spikes and barbells sticking out of various piercings than I have in my car.

I think Lando Lincoln's position is that the permit issued was "illegal", in that the scenario provided for the permit should have prevented it from being granted in the first place under current law.

I think we can all agree that if someone at the EPA goofed (or was bribed) and accidentally authorized a permit for Halliburton to inject several dozen metric tons of polonium, cadmium and antimony directly into the middle of the Ogalala aquifer, it would still be in the best interest of the country to revoke the permit, regardless if all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed on the original paperwork.