colon_pow: Top 5 Facts of EPA's Job Killing Regulations

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the EPA's Boiler MACT emission standards would eliminate 60,000 jobs.

Cement MACT standards that would be nearly impossible to meet.

National restrictions on coal ash that cost over $100 billion to implement and force 20% of coal-fired power plants to close, killing more than 100,00 jobs.

Unrealistic reductions in greenhouse emissions that will affect all new and existing power plants, manufacturers and oil refineries.

EPA's Ozone Rule, which has been put on hold by President Obama but could resurface and cost employers $1 trillion to implement and destroy millions of jobs.

It'd be nice if you had a link to cite these numbers before I believe them.

Mrtraveler01: 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.

tenpoundsofcheese: This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.

Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.


So which one is it?


Whichever one he doesn't have to answer the question "which regulations are killing jobs?"

BillCo: quatchi: born_yesterday: 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.

Yeah, more than passing strange. Totally out of character. Hope he's alright.

I'm fine, but thanks for caring.

*phew*

You know we worry.

colon_pow: FrailChild: quatchi: regulations

*head desk*

Christ on a cracker, I needs me some sweet, sweet Java bean juice. Stat.

Every time I come to this site, within about 60 seconds I see something sick, gross, disturbing, or blasphemous. Guess I should learn my lesson and stop coming to this site.

i turned off the images years ago.

There was no image there. Think that was in reference to the 'Christ on a cracker' thing.

All due apologies, FrailChild, if you were actually offended by that.

Unless you were just trolling there, of course, in which case nerts to you! :>p

[welcometofark]

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: New peer reviewed studies came out.

I don't think that the studies need to be peer reivewed (at least in the academic sense) so long as the work can be reviewed by the agencies in charge and comments issued and addressed as required by the nature of these studies.

They had new data based on activities both at other nearby mines, and at the mine in question.

Send over a link to the report. I would be interested in looking at the changes in data. Can't really comment here unless I better understand what the changes were.

Just out of curiosity, since you are so adamantly opposed to the EPA being able to pull previously granted permits, do you support the position that the EPA should veto any permit that they have any concerns about since they will not be able to revisit the determination in the future?

That is a false characterization of a NPDES Permit. A typical NPDES permit has a 5 year life. They can (and often do) revisit the limits based upon what the monitoring shows. To answer you question - the EPA should not be able to negate an approved permit without due process. If there were extraordinary circumstances (a pollutant that was never considered during the studies ends up being a major problem, etc) then I could see this happening, but it wouold have to be on a case-by-case basis. That was not the case here.

I already linked to the report earlier in the thread. I'm shocked that you haven't read it already considering how strongly you are convinced that an injustice was done to the oppressed coal mining company. I was certain you new the details of the case you yourself introduced into the discussion and weren't simply going "EPA bad, energy company good!"

bulldg4life: You never actually see what these job killing regulations are...It's just a generic statement that we should accept at face value.

I'd say it was idiotic to see people actually start railing on the EPA, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws....but it's only a matter of time before those nuts show up.

That's actually been happening in real politics. I'd like to find those idiots and take them in a nice little time machine, say, back to the 1800s, and drop them off disguised as a poor person.

Who knows, they might suffer a blow to the head that jolts the empathy hardwiring back into working order.

colon_pow: Boiler MACT

Are any of these in effect? How many jobs have actually been lost? Are the only regulations killing jobs just ones that have been proposed? Can you give me any citations to back these numbers?

tenpoundsofcheese: This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.
Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.


tenpoundsofcheese: This thread is about job killing regulations.

Statement: Regulations kill jobs.

Kind of vague. Let's analyze.

If regulations kill jobs, which jobs do they kill?
Do they kill actual, existing jobs, like abortions eliminate actual, existing feti?
Or, do they kill potential jobs, like masturbating eliminates millions of potential feti?

Those searching for a measurement must be convinced that the commentators are referring to the former; actual jobs that went away as a result of some sort of regulation. I would hope for more from you. It takes some abstract reasoning, as well as an ability to contemplate fairly simple economic theories.

Those who understand the meaning of the latter question know there is no conceivable measurement of it. At best, you could get a very inexact estimation. Sometimes you'll see confused commentators who almost understand, but not quite, trying to appease the measurement seekers by pulling some lost-job number out of their ass. But that's not the point.

The health of the business world should be measured by the per capita number of business owners; not the income disparity between executives and employees. The logic is fairly simple: the more private business owners there are, the more executives/management positions, and the more competition for each individual employee. The gains are spread much more evenly. Fewer business owners concentrate the economic power, and allow them to suppress wages, and grow the income disparity.

If there is a correlation betwenn the number, volume, or effect of regulation and income disparity (there is), then it is a reasonable conclusion that regulations are, in fact, not good for business. They are only good for established business because they so readily suppress competition.

Many of you also think deregulation caused the housing crisis. In some ways, the slackening of a few, very specific regulations may have exacerbated it, but deregulation certainly didn't cause it. The availability of basically unlimited, free money for banks to lend (quantitative easing) is the real culprit.

My real point is: try harder smart people. Think about things beyond what smacks you in the face. You can do it.

/I'm pro-choice btw. Actually donate to PP regularly.

Ablejack: tenpoundsofcheese: This thread is about how mediamatters is so concerned that the term is used 17,000% more.
Go to a thread that is about regulations, not the media coverage, if you want to learn about job killing regulations. Otherwise it is just a threadjack.


tenpoundsofcheese: This thread is about job killing regulations.


This thread is about avoiding listing the name of all the job-killing regulations.

HeadLever:

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.

"In line"? FTA: "This case -- like Sackett -- involved the EPA's enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Here, the EPA tried to withdraw permission to use two streams as discharge sites. The permission was granted three years earlier by the Army Corps of Engineers."

The first question I have after reading this article is "Why the f*ck is a coal mine discharging sh*t into a STREAM?"

Even according to the article, the case was decided on jurisdictional grounds (Army COE vs EPA) and not on whether a corporation should indeed be pouring noxious crap into rivers and streams. IMO, THAT is what the case should have been about.

Also FTA: "As for the Spruce Number One Mine, it now has the OK to move forward on what might be the largest mountaintop removal mine project in state history."

They are taking an entire chunk off the top of a mountain.
That is just farking WRONG, and why we need an EPA. Nixon was right to create it.

I hope Romney brings up the "Job Killing Regulation" meme during a debate with Obama to only have Obama ask "Can you name me specific Regulations my administration has implemented that has killed jobs"?

Gosh, those evil regulations have been killing jobs left and right since Obama took over the WH...

Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.


Unemployment rate has been trending down now during the Obama Administration.

One year trend...


During the Obama Administration...


Read all about it...

Private-sector job growth biggest in 3 years (new window)

Stealth signs of a stronger job market (new window)

Biggest unemployment rate improvement in nearly 28 years (new window)

Small businesses ramp up jobs (new window)

Jobs: 2 hopeful signs (new window)

The unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009 (new window)

Stealth jobs boom: 6 months, 2 million jobs (new window)

Jobless claims plunged last week to a nearly four-year low (new window)

Corporate Self: Let us look to the current paragons of unregulated capitalism:

[thomasfortenberry.net image 640x419]
China

[taheny.com image 520x390]
India

[www.corbisimages.com image 640x427]
Bangladesh

This is where the GOP and their corporate backers want to take America. Will you sell out your country for promises of trickle down?

Yes, because it was a Republican President that gave most favored nation status to them, right?

Oh wait, that was Clinton...

hugram: I hope Romney brings up the "Job Killing Regulation" meme during a debate with Obama to only have Obama ask "Can you name me specific Regulations my administration has implemented that has killed jobs"?

Gosh, those evil regulations have been killing jobs left and right since Obama took over the WH...

Private jobs hemorrhage slowed down during the Obama Administration and eventually went into positive territory.
[assets.democrats.org image 450x330]

Unemployment rate has been trending down now during the Obama Administration.

One year trend...
[i2.cdn.turner.com image 475x285]

During the Obama Administration...
[www.washingtonpost.com image 606x411]

Read all about it...

Private-sector job growth biggest in 3 years (new window)

Stealth signs of a stronger job market (new window)

Biggest unemployment rate improvement in nearly 28 years (new window)

Small businesses ramp up jobs (new window)

Jobs: 2 hopeful signs (new window)

The unemployment rate fell to 8.3%. That is the lowest since February 2009 (new window)

Stealth jobs boom: 6 months, 2 million jobs (new window)

Jobless claims plunged last week to a nearly four-year low (new window)

Yeah, it goes nicely when you remove +2 Million people from the role...

Most people here obviously don't work in a job that requires them to actually produce anything or do anything useful. Ever been in engineering or project management? Then you have dealt with stupid government regulations that double the price of most services.

On the consumer side of things, the reason a lot of stuff is so expensive now days is due to the government.

Thanks libs! You are destroying the country and you don't even know it.

It is an attempt by the right wing to deflect the blame - for sending American jobs to China and Mexico - on EPA regulations. It's not the truth. The proper culprits that deserve the blame are guys like "Job Killing Romney" at Bain Capital.

Repeat:
Job Killing Romney
Job Killing Romney
Job Killing Romney

Assholes like Romney are the blame not EPA.

HeadLever: Delay: It is an attempt by the right wing to deflect the blame - for sending American jobs to China and Mexico - on EPA regulations. It's not the truth. The proper culprits that deserve the blame are guys like "Job Killing Romney" at Bain Capital.

Actaully, it is mostly a by-product of free trade than some boogy-man from the 'other team'.

Where is this free trade?

DeArmondVI: Right Wing: Get rid of all these jerb killing regulashuns!!!1
Libs: We like efficiency and a sound economy. Which regulations are killing jobs?
Right Wing:...........................They're killing jobs!
Libs: Which ones?
Right Wing: The ones that are destroying America, driving unemployment through the roof and creating a European-esque socialist state, duh!!!
Libs: Ok............which regulations, specifically do that?
Right Wing: WE WILL NEVER TELL YOU WHICH! IF WE DID, YOU'D FIX IT AND THEN GET ALL OF THE GLORY!!! IT'S OUR SECRET PLAN THAT WE WILL TAKE CREDIT FOR AFTER WE WIN THE ELECTION !1!!
Libs: So, in other words, you're just making broad, sweeping statements about government policy, yet cannot back-up any of those statements with relevant facts, amirite?
Right Wing: WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH??!!!

A sane society would just walk away, leave the derpers to derp their derp loudly to any inanimate object that appears to listen to them.

See also: Job Creators

They'll get back to you on those job-killing regulations right after they're done enumerating the spending cuts that will balance the budget.

HeadLever: rewind2846: The first question I have after reading this article is "Why the f*ck is a coal mine discharging sh*t into a STREAM?"

it is not wastewater that is being dishcarged, but the natural water that runs through the valley that can pick up contaminants as it percolates through the waste rock removed from mining. This water is regulated acccording to the NPDES Permittin system.

Not the question I asked. The coal mine, knowing the crap that is in the water it is going to discharge, should have to treat that water in the same fashion as sewer systems do in order to remove as many contaminants as possible. Interesting that the mine got the permit in the first place under a very "energy corporation friendly" administration, one which did all it could to destroy agencies like the EPA... coincidence, no?

Even according to the article, the case was decided on jurisdictional grounds (Army COE vs EPA) and not on whether a corporation should indeed be pouring noxious crap into rivers and streams. IMO, THAT is what the case should have been about.

That process was done previously where the EPA had the ability to veto the NPDES permit before it was finalized. The EPA failed to do anything about it and then tried to retroactivly veto it. That is not allowed without due process.

Gee, I wonder why the EPA might have "failed to do anything about it"?
See my response above for a possible and highly plausible reason.

They are taking an entire chunk off the top of a mountain.

That is why they call it Mountain Top Remoal Mining.

And shooting someone in the forehead with a large caliber gun from a foot away is called "murder". That doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

Spaz-master: Corporate Self: Let us look to the current paragons of unregulated capitalism:

[thomasfortenberry.net image 640x419]
China

[taheny.com image 520x390]
India

[www.corbisimages.com image 640x427]
Bangladesh

This is where the GOP and their corporate backers want to take America. Will you sell out your country for promises of trickle down?

Yes, because it was a Republican President that gave most favored nation status to them, right?

Oh wait, that was Clinton...

Clinton opened up trade to unregulated capitalistic markets so the argument that the GOP is trying to turn us into those countries is invalid?!"

Corporate Self:

Oh wait, that was Clinton...

Clinton opened up trade to unregulated capitalistic markets so the argument that the GOP is trying to turn us into those countries is invalid?!"


It's the same rationale that republicans use when they try to explain that the Great Recession, economic collapse and general asshattery of the banks involved was the fault of rule changes that happened under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So in their tiny little minds it was the rule changes that made them act like greedy assholes, and not their own innate greed and assholiness.
It was the government that forced them make loans to fake people and robo-sign documents, the government that started that whole credit default swap and derivatives mess, the government which made them over-leverage the crap out of themselves... yep, that's one evil government, making them all greedy and sh*t.

Their logic is if murder were no longer illegal at midnight tonight, at 12:01 I should go after my neighbors with a chainsaw because the rules had changed.

Here's a hint Republicans: Just because there's no law written down somewhere that says you can't do something, it may still not be a good thing to do.

HeadLever: It is all part of the benefit vs impact analysis. If the person you shoot is a wielding a pistol and running at you shouting that he his going to kill you, your hypothetical may, in fact, be the best option you have.

Whatever you say, Mr. Zimmerman.

HeadLever: rewind2846: Here's a hint Republicans: Just because there's no law written down somewhere that says you can't do something, it may still not be a good thing to do.

Here is a hint - this really isn't a R vs D thing. The Judge that slapped the EPA upside the head in this case was an Obama-appointed federal judge. The in the Sackett case, that verdict from the Supreme Court was unanimous. Sometimes it is about basic fairness of the law.

Just because you don't like it does not make it wrong.

Do you actually think that taking the tops off mountains and burying streams in toxic rubble is the right thing to do? No double talk about benefit vs. impact, just a straight answer.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Do you actually think that taking the tops off mountains and burying streams in toxic rubble is the right thing to do?

I am not as familiar with the MTR back East. I am more familiar with the Hard Rock Mines here out west. I don't know all the issues very well associated with MTR, so I am not going to say. However, I will mention that each mine should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

However, since you are speaking in generalities; if you are going to mine in an open pit fashion, you are going to need to take the 'top off' of something. Secondly, that overburden and waste rock needs to be placed somewhere.

How about we rather than allowing the companies to bury streams and permanently destroy the environment, we require them to stockpile the "waste rock" and return it to the original location after that area has been mined.

Would that be too much of a burden for those tree hugging environmentalists that run coal mining companies?

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: How about we rather than allowing the companies to bury streams and permanently destroy the environment, we require them to stockpile the "waste rock" and return it to the original location after that area has been mined.

Lol, where are they going to 'stockpile' millions of tons of waste rock? Do you actaully see this as a littel dirt pile over in the corder of the minesite by the admin building? You apparently have no clue on the scale or impacts of which you speak. And even if you do remove the overburden and wasterock from these infilled areas after the mine has closed, the damage has already been done. There will be no trees or vegitation left on the hillsides and erosion along the denuded valley walls would be a huge issue.

Would that be too much of a burden for those tree hugging environmentalists that run coal mining companies?

The benifits of this action would be very minor for the amount of cost it would entail. A better option would be to stockpile only the topsoil then reclaim the waste dumps by replanting vegitation on top. This does a couple of things. First it reduces erosion from the areas as you can control the grade of the surface and plant vegitation with a good strong root system. Secondly, all water from precipitation has to first go through a vegitated layer before it can percolate through the waste rock and into the old stream system. This will reduce the amount of water (and amount of pollutants) that will end up in the old stream system.

Oh tell me again about how much the mining executives love and care for the environment. They really do put the Sierra Club to shame, don't they? Why can't the EPA just cooperate with these people who's first concern clearly is to protect our natural areas? Why fdo they have to be adversaries of these great stewards?

I'm guessing you work in the mining industry. Do you have any qualms about the damage you do, or is burying a mountain stream under tons of rock just another day at the office?

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh tell me again about how much the mining executives love and care for the environment.

It depends upon the executive. Your brush seems very large. How do you pack it around so easily?

Anyway, that is not really the point since your 'fix to the problem' would cause many more isses than it would solve.

I'm guessing you work in the mining industry.

Let's just say that I have an M.S in Environmental Engineering and no, I am not employed by a mining company. I do know how the system works, though. I also know you have very little knowledge of the issues you are arguing here in this thread.

Do you have any qualms about the damage you do, or is burying a mountain stream under tons of rock just another day at the office?

I have huge qualms about this damage, hence, my degree. However, human existence is dependent upon some impacts. It is unavoidable. You should know, you are currently using a computer that has aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, gallium, gold, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, palladium, platinum, selenium, silver, and zinc. in it. Where the hell do you think these materials origionated from? How about the power to run it? Do you have a ring on your finger or in your ear? What is it made of?

See, I am not like you. Instead of blindly biatching about these problems that you have not even taken the time to really understand, I actally went to college in order to do something about fixing these environmental problems.

Yep, you are dedicated to fixing these environmental problems by railing against the EPA (which needs to be Biatchslapped and "kept in line") and their "job killing regulations" on the internet and defending the polluters. Good show, Man. You are doing noble work.

HeadLever: and their "job killing regulations"

I am not one to really rail against the EPA in this regard (BTW, nice job at putting words in my mouth), however, when they corrupt the system as they did in these cases, the entire system suffers. There is no doubt that this has an impact on both the buisness side and the public side.


I'll just leave your original entry into this thread here to remind everyone that you clearly don't believe that the EPA, and this case in particular, is an example of "job killing regulations".

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.

Now go back to pretending to care about the environment and being deeply concerned about the massive environmental destruction that these operations cause.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: defending the polluters

Also, don't forget that you are, indeed, a part of 'the polluters'. If it weren't for you using your computer, car, TV and all of your other possesions and the power they need, there would be no use for these mines. If you didn't live in a house or use toilet paper, there would be very little use for logging. If you didn't eat meat or plants for food, there would be very little use for grazing, fertilizer use and irrigation which would reduce topsoil loss, help the aquifers and loosen the stranglehold Monsanto has on the industry.

If that's your attitude, it seems odd that you claim that you are a professional environmentalist.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: If that's your attitude, it seems odd that you claim that you are a professional environmentalist.


Where did I ever say that I was a professional environmentalist? Is your reading comprehension that bad or are you trying to move the goalpost again?

I assumed that your claim of a degree in environmental engineering meant you actually were working in the field. You attitude does explain why you have not put you academic studies to use. You'd have to move to a shack in the woods and reject all of modern society in order to advocate for the environment and condemn polluters.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: I assumed that your claim of a degree in environmental engineering meant you actually were working in the field.

I am working in the field. If you actually think that environmental engineering is the same thing as a professional environmentalist, you know even less than I was thinking before. It might be time for you to quit letting us know how uninformed you really are.

Or I guess you could continue on, removing all remaining doubt. It is your choice

So you work in the field of "environmental engineering", but do not consider yourself to be an environmentalist. You also believe that condemning polluters is hypocrisy unless one rejects all of modern society.

Hmm....

This isn't drawing a very positive picture of you and the type of work you do.

What kind of environmental destruction are you paid to assist?

rewind2846: Corporate Self:

Oh wait, that was Clinton...

Clinton opened up trade to unregulated capitalistic markets so the argument that the GOP is trying to turn us into those countries is invalid?!"


It's the same rationale that republicans use when they try to explain that the Great Recession, economic collapse and general asshattery of the banks involved was the fault of rule changes that happened under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. So in their tiny little minds it was the rule changes that made them act like greedy assholes, and not their own innate greed and assholiness.
It was the government that forced them make loans to fake people and robo-sign documents, the government that started that whole credit default swap and derivatives mess, the government which made them over-leverage the crap out of themselves... yep, that's one evil government, making them all greedy and sh*t.

Their logic is if murder were no longer illegal at midnight tonight, at 12:01 I should go after my neighbors with a chainsaw because the rules had changed.

Here's a hint Republicans: Just because there's no law written down somewhere that says you can't do something, it may still not be a good thing to do.

Exactly. Despite all its self-righteousness , The Right has lost its moral compass.

Some people scoff at the mention of "morality", but the fact we all agree to certain written and unwritten codes of conduct (from laws to handshakes) is the underpinnings of our social contracts. Remove those codes and society can no longer exist. We quickly devolve into every man/corporation for himself.

HeadLever: Philip Francis Queeg: So you work in the field of "environmental engineering", but do not consider yourself to be an environmentalist.

Depends upon the definition you are using. Environmentalist as in one who broadly supports the goals of the environmental movement and works to reduce pollution that results from our impacts, then sure.

Environmentalist as is those that attempt to save the world by sacrificing personal hygiene and attempting to throw a monkey wrench into every project they disagree with, the no.

In any case, I am not, nor ever claimed to be, a professional environmentalist.

You also believe that condemning polluters is hypocrisy unless one rejects all of modern society.

Nope, just another attempt to move the goalpost. Those getting heavy yet?

This isn't drawing a very positive picture of you and the type of work you do.

Of course not because that broad brush you are wielding tends to paint over the actual points I am making.

Hehehe!