I don't care for Gingrich's personal life, but he is absolutely correct in his analysis of the EPA. It is an unelected rouge agency that has answered to no one. It carries way too much power, with too little oversight. For example: If the highway department takes your property to run a highway through it, you must be compensated for the property. If the EPA declares your property to be a wetland (so that you have little use of it) you are just left with land that can't be used.
Is the FBI elected? How about the CIA or FCC? Only the director of the EPA is appointed by the president and Bush appointed one who worked for the energy industry. The EPA does not have ENOUGH power. These people dont give a crap about our environment. All they care about is bottom line. Global warming has been proven by several top research institutions and allowing these monsters to continue to poison use is criminal. The EPA wouldnt have to declare your property a wetland if the petrochemical industry didnt destroy all good wetlands in the 50?s, 60?s and 70?s. The director of the EPA answers directly to the president and if you had bothered to read its charter you would know that. and what the hell are you going to use a freaking wetland for anyway?
jimbom121: That is exactly the point. We cleaned up the air and water in the 70's. What the EPA is focusing on now is over kill, in pushing for regulations that are based on unproven theory. Meanwhile, the same over kill is killing jobs and causing price increases for Americans. The EPA is going to extremes in attempts to prove it is still worthwhile. I am all for clean air and water, but CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, the planet dies. Toxins are one thing, but natural parts of the atmosphere are another. The EPA must be held accountable to act in a reasonable fashion, and it is now practicing extremes that are hurting business and individuals. It too must be regulated.
Gingrich was and is a jerk. It doesn't have to be jobs vs. a clean environment. Would it be a good idea to get rid of drinking water standards so companies can just toss waste into rivers? Or let factories pump gas into the air? Gingrich is another GOP dinosaur, lost in the past and looking backwards as usual.
Does anyone actually listen to this firm father figure ridiculous failure? How could people like this be clueless for so long. I guess like other conservatives he believes that if you keep repeating the same lies and propaganda over and over, people will start to listen.
Actually, like idiot, moron Palin, it just illustrates how stupid he is.
If Gengrich runs for office then hes news worthy otherwise hes not worth the time for ads to pay for his reotic any more than PayLyh or what other Hyper right Nut you put in place Unless theyre current office holders or seeking office in plain sight thier opinion isnt any better than the lobbyists that twist truth to thier own gain or the nearest welfare recipiant this is Public welfare to give airtime to noize makers that are fence sitters at best.
I don't think the EPA needs to be done away with, but I do know that is has caused some kinds of hardships on businesses.
While I'm sure it has prevented enormous pollution of our water and our air, there are episodes where it has become over zealous.
Once such episode is a broad definition of "wetlands", which can cost businesses millions of dollars. For instance, instead of being able to bush-hogged, some areas need to be hand-cleared, costing hundreds of dollars extra for yearly maintenances.
Another area is in the protection of obscure organisms such as frogs, owls, certain plants, etc. EPA has shut down many work sites when evidence suggests that a protected species may happen to be in that particular area. Letting protection of a frog keep people from working is not a good thing in my book.
EPA certainly needs a good overhaul, and possibly a reduction of overzealous rules and regulations.
OK, so he wants to get all the dumb votes..... luckily, not everyone in the US is that foolish.
Do you know what it is like in countries where the government does not protect it's citizens from pollution, invest in infrastructure, education etc? It's not pretty folks. Get out and see the world, you will understand why we have these government agencies.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
and what the hell are you going to use a freaking wetland for anyway?
Actually, like idiot, moron Palin, it just illustrates how stupid he is.
---
Not hard to see who Newt is looking out for, is it?
While I'm sure it has prevented enormous pollution of our water and our air, there are episodes where it has become over zealous.
Once such episode is a broad definition of "wetlands", which can cost businesses millions of dollars. For instance, instead of being able to bush-hogged, some areas need to be hand-cleared, costing hundreds of dollars extra for yearly maintenances.
Another area is in the protection of obscure organisms such as frogs, owls, certain plants, etc. EPA has shut down many work sites when evidence suggests that a protected species may happen to be in that particular area. Letting protection of a frog keep people from working is not a good thing in my book.
EPA certainly needs a good overhaul, and possibly a reduction of overzealous rules and regulations.
Do you know what it is like in countries where the government does not protect it's citizens from pollution, invest in infrastructure, education etc? It's not pretty folks. Get out and see the world, you will understand why we have these government agencies.