We Need to Rebrand the EPA

Scott Pruitt, the head of the EPA, just announced the withdrawal from the Clean Power Plan.  What was this?  Well, the Clean Power Plan requires states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards based on their individual energy consumption.  You can read more about this here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/environmental-protection-agency-scott-pruitt-clean-power-plan/index.html

 

In that article you can see where Pruitt downplayed the potential health issues in favor of jobs in an interview with Fox News.  Because that is apparently the job of the EPA now, ignore potential health problems in favor of jobs.  Naturally, this move guarantees to be tied up in court for a bit, just like the Clean Power was tied up in the court system.  This is summarized nicely in this Washington Post article, the same in which Pruitt announces the end of "The War on Coal."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/09/pruitt-tells-coal-miners-he-will-repeal-power-plan-rule-tuesday-the-war-on-coal-is-over/?utm_term=.57ba2d27e2e4

 

This is not the first time that the new EPA has done such a thing, previous EPA employees are leaving in droves because of the change of direction:

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/12/542998622/trump-s-epa-rolls-back-dozens-of-environmental-regulations

 

One of the more personal ones with me is about chlorpyrifos, a pesticide thought to cause issues with brain development amongst fetuses and children.  The EPA (ironically) concluded that the pesticide did cause risks, only to reverse itself under new management.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-agency-refuses-ban-pesticide-used-crops-070319757.html

 

Why is this personal to me?  Well, one possible side effect is autism and I have an autistic son.

 

Pruitt only met with industry executives and agricultural groups, no environmental groups, before making this decision:

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/08/18/epa-welcomed-industry-feedback-before-reversing-chlorpyrifos-pesticide-ban-ignoring-health-concerns/

 

So, really, what it boils down to is that Pruitt and Trump both say they want clean air and water but only if it doesn't cost too much or cause issues with a profit margin or piss off the Trumpling base.

 

So, really, the "Protection" part of the Environmental Protection Agency is a bit superfluous.  That's not their job anymore, their job is to increase the profit margin and create jobs, no matter what this costs in sick people, especially kids.   This is why the EPA needs a new name.  I'm going to propose two:

 

1) The Economics Prevails Agency (EPA)-This is one for the traditionalists.  You keep the EPA of the original agency, you keep the same initials on Pruitt's door and you don't need to change the stationary that just says "EPA."  It's kind of a "win-win" scenario.  But, on the other hand, it doesn't really stand out to me.  It's too bureaucratic and rather stodgy.  This is why I actually prefer this one:

 

2)  The Fuck You Environment Agency (FYE)-This one I like.  It puts the "environment" back into play, it's snappy and nicely radical.  It accurately describes what Trump and Pruitt want to do to the EPA and the environment in one fell swoop.  It's catchy in a way that no one will forget.

 

Thoughts?  I welcome suggestions.

 

Comments

Flying Junior Added Oct 11, 2017 - 2:58am
The perversion of the EPA is the most obvious travesty of the Trump administration.  It goes hand in hand with the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords.  It's like having demons that wish to rain death upon the peoples in charge of the entire economy.
 
The republican party under the leadership of the Shrub and Darth Cheney had already relaxed clean water standards for arsenic.  That was a nod to the mining industry.  Even Obama and Governor Moonbeam have allowed fracking in the name of energy independence.  The sadistic presidency of Bush II was only a prelude to the nightmare presidency of Trump.
 
There is really no such thing as clean or safe coal.  Anyone who is familiar with the coal sludge spills in Tennessee will know exactly what I am talking about.  But even if the by-products were somehow safely stored, the plants that burn the poison could never be made safe for the atmosphere.
 
Trump has exceeded the existing republican willful ignorance and denial of pollution truths.  Incredibly, he has loyal followers, many within the republican establishment.
 
If anyone can say that the democratic party supports these dangerous policies, I would like to see the proof.
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 11, 2017 - 9:31am
Jeffry, I suggest the following name:
 
Rapacious Americans Practicing Torture Under Republican Enablement,
 
or RAPTURE. That captures both the economic interests with the belief under certain evangelical sects that since the second coming is imminent, why pay attention to the state of the earth?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 9:53am
LOL, I can get behind RAPTURE.
 
Hey, if climate change becomes a problem Jesus can fix it.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 11, 2017 - 9:59am
Jeffrey -
Hysteria is not science - neither is ignorance.  The EPA was another "well intentioned" boondoggle started in 1970 by President Nixon.  It wasn't long before sociology majors and lawyers with political connections were running the agency and perverted it to advance a political agenda.  The EPA declaring that CO2 is a "Toxic Gas" is a perfect example of their lunacy.  If you're familiar with a process called "photosynthesis", you know that plants convert CO2 into oxygen . . . CO2 IS NECESARY FOR ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET!!!!
 
It is also an un-Constitutional agency - every state has their own EPA and is close to the problems and taxpayers, the way it should be.  Congress can still pass legislation for any situation requiring national attention.  The coal industry is not going to "replace" any existing energy sources. 
 
So-called renewable energy sources are entirely insufficient to provide the necessary energy for basic human needs like water, food, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.  Municipal Transportation will need to rely on fossil fuels for a long time to come - as will trains, trucks, ships, crop planting and harvesting machines, aircraft, commercial airliners, military vehicles, etc.  Not to mention that coal and oil have byproducts necessary for our survival such as fertilizer, coal for steel production, thousands of chemicals and pharmaceuticals and the entire plastic products industry.
 
Keep in mind that the hysteria regarding human generated CO2 is just that - hysteria!  EVEN IF we magically eliminated ALL HUMAN GENERATED CO2, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would only drop from the current level of 400 ppm to 395 ppm!!!
 
The average person hears horrible sounding "facts" like "300,000 tons of CO2 are emitted bla, bla, bla" and it scares them.  When you compare human generated CO2 to naturally generated CO2 and the immense volume and mass of the Earth's atmosphere, our contribution is insignificant. 
    
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 11, 2017 - 10:15am
On big problem with politicize a bureaucratic agency.  When you pull the pendulum far in one direction will insure when it swing back it will swing far in the other direction.  Obama and the presidents before him has pulled the EPA far in one direction. 
 
Example defining creeks as navigable waters and low spots on properties that only occasionally fill with water as marsh lands. 
Stopping all commercial activity because a new animal is found without compensating the business.   Hundreds of species go extinct naturally every year.
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 11, 2017 - 10:16am
One big problem 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 11, 2017 - 10:16am
Jeffrey - your statement:
 
"One of the more personal ones with me is about chlorpyrifos, a pesticide thought to cause issues with brain development amongst fetuses and children."
 
indicates you need to do a little more research.  Everything I have read indicates that there is no conclusive evidence of this substance causing harm as currently used.  Now, you can take just about any substance (e.g. salt) and if you ingest enough of it in a short time and it will cause illness or death. 
 
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/the-facts-on-chlorpyrifos/
 
In addition, there is a cost to banning a substance.  Back in the '60's DDT was claimed to cause all sorts of harm to humans through ingestion of animals exposed to it.  While the animal tissue did show a presence of DDT, the concentration was so low you would have to eat 150 lbs of it a day to get sick!  DDT was banned anyway due to hysteria - not science - and as a result hundreds of millions of people worldwide died and got seriously ill from a disease that was virtually wiped out by DDT - Malaria!
 
I am truly sorry about your child's Autism.  Nobody wants to see children suffer - but striking out at anything that "might" be a cause does no good either.  Precious time and research funding are being scattered all over the place running down every unsubstantiated claim about the cause.  My prayers will be made for you and your child.         
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 10:25am
@Flying Junior:
 
I think Trump and Pruitt figure before things get really bad they'll be dead of old age.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 11, 2017 - 10:30am
Just to illustrate that the EPA is NOT what they claim to be:
 
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/04/488579040/one-year-after-a-toxic-river-spill-no-clear-plan-to-clean-up-western-mines
 
This is what happens when science gets politicized!  It all starts when Presidents reward major supporters with lucrative government posts for which they are ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED (e.g. Carol Browner).  They in turn appoint and promote more technically unqualified associates (usually lawyers) and so on and so on until the agency is a bloated bureaucracy of unqualified, incompetent, unaccountable, invisible morons.
 
These people who are supposed to defend the environment totally screwed up and they have the gall to not hold anyone responsible or even pay to clean up their mess!!!  Nobody gets fired - nobody held accountable, this is how you think a government agency should operate?  I guarantee you that if BP Oil did this they would be paying $billions in damages and fines!
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 11, 2017 - 11:33am
DDT was the primary insecticide for killing mosquitoes.  One million people die a year mostly in the third world.  "The World Health Organization estimates that between 300 and 500 million cases of malaria occur each year -- and a child dies from malaria every 30 seconds.   DDT ban happened after America ended its problem. . . .  The disease virtually disappeared in the 1950s when the National Malaria Eradication Program implemented a DDT (a synthetic pesticide) program to control the mosquito population."
 
http://www.hardydiagnostics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/The-Most-Deadly-Animals.pdf
 
Leroy Added Oct 11, 2017 - 11:47am
As you pointed out, the Clean Air Act is already tied up in court and never implemented.  It was an illegal power grab by the O administration.  Ending something that was never implemented does not affect the environment. 
 
Congress allowed the EPA to do its job for it.  Essentially, Pruitt is throwing it back at the Congress for it to do its job.  If it is a concern, let congress do its job the way it is supposed to be.  Let it enact legislation rather than allowing the EPA to create its own legislation.  Makes sense to me to make Congress do its job.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 11, 2017 - 11:48am
Thomas - thanks for the backup information! 
Leroy Added Oct 11, 2017 - 11:50am
How many billions of dollars have been wasted on the "Oh, the children!" knee-jerk reactions?  Shouldn't we apply logic and reason?
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 1:11pm
Mike Haluska, thank you for your kind words for my child.  I take those words in the spirit they are given.
 
As for the rest, I'm at work and cannot reply right now.
Dino Manalis Added Oct 11, 2017 - 1:49pm
We should strive to protect our environment; save/create jobs; and keep energy costs down!
Donna Added Oct 11, 2017 - 2:46pm
Jeffrey-So sorry to hear about your son. As i am a spiritual person, the earth is a major concern for me, and mine, i do not approve of all they are doing, and most certainly think all heading forward needs to be about clean power, and energy. 
Not the old ways of let someone years down the road worry about it. 
The only problem i see is the fact that even some in the science community take a political side. If all they did was report the truth, we would not constantly have issues with what is correct, and what has become political. )0(
Even A Broken Clock Added Oct 11, 2017 - 3:31pm
Thomas and Mike - regarding the effects of DDT, you are correct that one of DDT's benefits was that it is relatively non-toxic to mammals including humans. Don't think you could eat 150 pounds in a day of it, but then I don't think you could eat 150 pounds of anything.
 
The problem with DDT is that it is bioaccumulative, and especially affects birds. It was not hysteria that got DDT banned, it was the extreme decline in songbird and raptor populations that got people's attention. Bald eagle population crashed during the 1960's. That's what got many of these species threatened status. The main effect was that the eggs of these birds thinned, causing failure of the eggs. It doesn't take many years of reproductive failure to put the future of the species at risk. This was a case where the experiment was conducted in real time - hypothesis was that the exposure to DDT was crashing the population. Solution was to ban the chemical, and the system response was that the population recovered. That is science at work, not hysteria.
 
If you haven't noticed, there is indeed a new use of DDT to target mosquitoes. It is being used to treat bed netting in regions where this is a tool to reduce exposure to mosquitoes. No longer used indiscriminately, it is serving its purpose of providing protection to humans while not posing a risk to non-target species.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 3:44pm
Thanks, EABC.  You just saved me some research time....
:)
Thomas Sutrina Added Oct 11, 2017 - 3:44pm
EBC,  the use of DDT in America didn't wipe out the birds but wiped out malaria.   So the issue is can the UN or some private group do the same thing in the third world.  As we showed you do not have to use DDT forever.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:12pm
@Thomas Sutrina:
"EBC, the use of DDT in America didn't wipe out the birds but wiped out malaria."
 
But, unbridled use began to threaten the bird population.  This is why it was banned.
 
"So the issue is can the UN or some private group do the same thing in the third world. As we showed you do not have to use DDT forever."
 
What EABC showed is that controlled usage is fine, it is unregulated use that is dangerous.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:22pm
Broken Clock -
 
Thanks for your input.  Now I understand that the biggest threat to birds is not toxins, but windmills!
Henry Ortiz Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:28pm
Let’s use another example to see is people understand that the use of DDT is/was necessary. Antibiotics use to kill bacteria are necessary when you are sick, if you use them indiscriminately you are in trouble because it can cause serious problems in your organism. 
 
Now, do we have to stop using antibiotics? Of course no, do they cause bad side effects to your body even you need them?, of course yes. Same thing with DDT and other products.
 
The issue is to used them when they are appropriate and under the supervision of people who know about the “subject”.
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:29pm
Jeff -
 
Situations like yours are what frustrate me more about pseudo-science than anything - especially human caused climate change.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US has spent over $510 Billion on Climate Change since 1980 and $26 Billion in 2016!  Only $2 Billion was allocated to fight Cancer - and that disease threatens and kills more than any other.  I'm no biomedical scientist but I can Guarantee you that if we applied that amount of resource to fighting the problems of TODAY, many of them would have been cured by now.
 
When the world is adequately fed, educated, housed and clothed and our kids are no longer suffering from childhood diseases, then we can worry about the climate 200 years in the future.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:31pm
@Mike Haluska:
"Broken Clock -

Thanks for your input. Now I understand that the biggest threat to birds is not toxins, but windmills!"
 
Getting squished by a windmill or a vehicle doesn't threaten their very existence, Mike.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:49pm
@Mike Haluska:
"Jeff -

Situations like yours are what frustrate me more about pseudo-science than anything - "
 
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, Mike.
 
I certainly never claimed that my son's autism is tied to any environmental factor.  I'm certain, looking over mine and my wife's family history, that it is genetic and not environmental.
 
However, what I am saying is that if there are environmental factors that contribute to the rise of autism and other forms of mental or physical illnesses in fetuses, infants, children or adults then those factors need to be minimized as much as humanly possible.  
 
To an extent I'm lucky, Mike.  My son is highly intelligent, gets along fairly OK and is reasonably well-adjusted.  It was a long heartbreaking process to get him here.  But others are not as lucky and I've seen it.  I don't wish that on anyone.
 
 
"especially human caused climate change.   According to the Congressional Budget Office, the US has spent over $510 Billion on Climate Change since 1980 and $26 Billion in 2016! Only $2 Billion was allocated to fight Cancer - and that disease threatens and kills more than any other."
 
Well, Mike, there are solutions.  Streamlining our military budget, no wall, raising taxes on those that can afford it, all of these things can help.  I agree that more money needs allocation to things like cancer but I also think more money needs allocation to education, both adult and children, healthcare, services to those in need, etc.  Not to building obsolete tanks or a giant useless wall.
 
BTW, just so we're clear, even as a liberal I support a strong military.  Just not an over bloated, wasteful one.
 
"I'm no biomedical scientist but I can Guarantee you that if we applied that amount of resource to fighting the problems of TODAY, many of them would have been cured by now."
 
Well, write to your local representative and tell them my plan.  Let's get it done.
Oh, and someone (I won't name him) could cut down the golf trips.  

"When the world is adequately fed, educated, housed and clothed and our kids are no longer suffering from childhood diseases,"
 
You and I are on the same page, Mike.  Let's get my action plan going.
 
"then we can worry about the climate 200 years in the future."
 
It's gonna be way too late for that, Mike.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 4:50pm
@Donna
BTW, thank you for your kind words.  I read them, I just got a chance to reply.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Oct 11, 2017 - 6:17pm
Jobs at any cost is a perverse idea, and shows the moral bankruptcy in the sick minds of the people behind it. Such a mentally would legalize everything from heroin production to child pornography. Afterall both industries produce jobs, right? Sick indeed.
 
Jeff sorry to hear about your child. As a parent myself, and expecting a second child soon, things like that burden my heart greatly. It's a sad day we are in when concern for the future of our children is looked upon as a negative. 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 7:00pm
Lady Sekhmetnakt, best wishes for you and your family for your upcoming child.
wsucram15 Added Oct 11, 2017 - 7:15pm
Jeffrey anything this cabinet does is for the  dark money and Wall Street characters that make up the 1%.
They have no interest in the people and their health, safety, jobs or anything else.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 7:27pm
Absolutely true, wsucram15.  Over 62,000,000 people in this country fell for the biggest con jobs in history.
John G Added Oct 11, 2017 - 7:38pm
Capitalists will always externalise the true costs of production wherever and whenever they can.
The code for that is 'job creation'. The reality is private profits at social expense.
Saint George Added Oct 11, 2017 - 8:29pm
We need to abolish the EPA. It's a holdover from the Nixon administration.
Jeff Michka Added Oct 11, 2017 - 8:29pm
Well, Jeffrey, your nice thought article did manage to unglue HaHaHaluska who still doesn't realize the joke's on him...But don't you just get a thrill knowing ALL THOSE COAL MINERS will be back to work, like the Orange scumbag "promised."  They'll even be able to quit selling their children to afford their opioid of choice, undoubtedly purchased from an inner city resident out for a Sunday drive.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 8:59pm
LOL, I wonder what they are going to do with all that coal no one wants, Jeff M.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Oct 11, 2017 - 9:05pm
If you're going to tell it like it is, how about calling it the Environmental Pollution Agency?
 
This will produce more sick people for temporary jobs, just as the Republicans scale back Health Care.
 
I'm glad more people here are getting concerned about the environment and writing more articles on it.
REVELATION: GLOBAL WARMING – FACT OR FICTION? TRUTH OR CONSEQUENCES?
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 9:34pm
Not bad, Ray.  I like the Environmental Pollution Agency.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 11, 2017 - 9:43pm
@ Leroy:
"How many billions of dollars have been wasted on the "Oh, the children!" knee-jerk reactions?"
 
Um, well, Leroy, I realize it's a common Republican affliction to love them some fetuses but not give a crap when the baby is born.  For me billions of dollars is a small price to pay to protect children.
 
 
"Shouldn't we apply logic and reason?"
 
Well, I think it's both logical and reasonable to do what we can to keep children healthy.  
John G Added Oct 12, 2017 - 1:56am
Hahahahahahaluska: When the world is adequately fed, educated, housed and clothed and our kids are no longer suffering from childhood diseases, then we can worry about the climate 200 years in the future.
1. We can do both.
2. You are without fail adamantly against spending on those laudable goals. And you whine about your 'tax dollars' being spent on dead beats and their kids. (So much for your commitment to science as your economics understanding stinks).
3. Money doesn't disappear when it is spent.
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 3:39am
So, really, the "Protection" part of the Environmental Protection Agency is a bit superfluous.
 
It always was superfluous. Cleaner environments result from better, more efficient technologies. Government cannot legislate, or "command", those into existence. Like all legislation, EPA rulings have had the typical deadening effect on technological innovation especially in coal power. 
John G Added Oct 12, 2017 - 4:15am
 Government cannot legislate, or "command", those into existence. 
WTF?
Saint George Added Oct 12, 2017 - 4:28am
WTF, what?
 
What are you talking about? Damn, you are one stupid, uneducated loaf of rat-turd. 
Leroy Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:34am
The EPA is a tool for control.  It does little to protect the environment.  In fact, it can legitimize pollution.  It can work with industry to determine just how much poison is acceptable.  Like most agencies, the intentions were good.  But the road to hell... 
 
It should be run by the states.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Oct 12, 2017 - 8:15am
Ideally the EPA should "control" Industry from polluting our life sustaining environment. 
 
Industry thinks short term money and profit, instead of a decent respect for posterity.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 12, 2017 - 10:30am
Jeffrey - your statement:
 
"Getting squished by a windmill or a vehicle doesn't threaten their very existence, Mike."
 
is puzzling.  Is your conclusion based on interviews with birds killed by windmills?  Did you take their "lack of a response" to your question as "proof" of your conclusion?
 
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 12, 2017 - 11:26am
@Mike Haluska:
"Jeffrey - your statement:

"Getting squished by a windmill or a vehicle doesn't threaten their very existence, Mike."

is puzzling. Is your conclusion based on interviews with birds killed by windmills? Did you take their "lack of a response" to your question as "proof" of your conclusion?"
 
Um, Mike, when you reply, try to make some sense.
 
Maybe I should clarify:
Birds die, it happens all the time.  That's nature at work.
But, if you compromise a species ability to procreate, that leads to extinction.
 
Now, this includes over hunting a species or destroying the habitat of a species.  What DDT did was compromise the eggs the birds laid, making them vulnerable.  This led to the decline of the bald eagle population, among others.  When DDT was banned the population rebounded.
 
Now, I know Republicans are all about symbols, the flag, the anthem, mom, apple pie, baseball.  So, you would think the loss of a national symbol like the bald eagle would cause some concern amongst those so concerned about any possible disrespect or destruction of such a bird.

 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 12, 2017 - 11:27am
Jeffrey - your statements are addressed below:
 
"However, what I am saying is that if there are environmental factors that contribute to the rise of autism and other forms of mental or physical illnesses in fetuses, infants, children or adults then those factors need to be minimized as much as humanly possible."
 
Nobody disagrees with that.  The problem is that somebody with no valid scientific proof of causality (e.g. vaccinations CAUSE autism) scares lots of people to do irrational things (like avoid vaccinations).      
 
"Well, Mike, there are solutions.  Streamlining our military budget, no wall, raising taxes on those that can afford it, all of these things can help."
 
 How is cutting spending in one area make it OK to waste money in another area?  If your furnace was outdated and causing you to have ridiculously high heating bills, would you replace the furnace or cut your grocery budget so your old furnace can go on wasting money?
 
"I agree that more money needs allocation to things like cancer but I also think more money needs allocation to education, both adult and children, healthcare, services to those in need, etc."
 
NONE of the above items are within the authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution - a concept that liberals just can't grasp.  The federal treasury was never intended to nor should act as a charity!  You want to cut the military - that IS the first and foremost responsibility of the federal government!  Besides, the vast majority of federal spending is for ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS! 
 
You still fail to grasp the enormity of the amount of money wasted on "Climate Change"!  And what do we have to show for this expenditure?  Nothing except demands for more research grants than ever!  To put this waste in perspective for you, the cost of the Apollo Missions to the Moon cost $25 billion - we could funded 20 APOLLO MISSIONS with what we wasted on "Climate Change"!!! 
 
For over 40 YEARS we have gotten one "Imminent Doomsday Forecast" after another - and they NEVER HAPPEN!  In legitimate science, your theory has to be proven out in REALITY.  For some stupid reason "Climate Change" gets a 40 year pass on science and common sense.  Can you imagine what would happen if the Pentagon spent $25 billion a year for the past 40 years promising a "flying aircraft carrier" and it never even came close to being built???
 
Finally, opposing the use of the federal treasury doesn't mean that I want people to suffer.  I agree with your objectives - it is the method I have a big problem with.  Since we started using the federal treasury as a charity, the parade of "causes" to be supported has become almost endless.  Many of the "causes" are contradictory or opposed by just as many as those that support them.
 
Let me give you an example.  Planned Parenthood was awarded $510 million this year, despite significant taxpayer opposition.  I assume as a liberal you support this use of taxpayer (not yours) money.  Suppose I managed to get Congress to grant the NRA $510 million for "gun safety programs".  There would be an uproar on the left, but why is your "cause" more worthy than mine?  We BOTH pay taxes, right?
 
This is why charities should NOT be funded by government.  If you feel Planned Parenthood is a cause worthy of your financial support, go ahead and donate half of your paycheck if you want - I won't lift a finger to protest.  We should BOTH be free to sponsor whatever charity we want using our own resources and not use the government to reach into other pockets without their consent.  I trust you think that is fair and reasonable for all parties concerned.   
Mike Haluska Added Oct 12, 2017 - 12:42pm
Jeff K -
 
The bald eagle population was decreasing long before (1820's) DDT came into use.  Given that DDT was supposed to be used as a means to fight the insects carrying malaria, I wonder how the hell it got introduced into the malaria-free environment of Alaska???
 
EVEN IF (that's still an IF) DDT caused the egg shell problem, why stop its use in regions all around the Frakkin' world where millions of people suffered and died needlessly?  Do you think people dying in Asia and Africa give a rat's ass about a bird in America???  
 
As long as left wing pseudo-scientists are allowed to make decisions regarding science this crap will continue.  How about we make a deal?  You guys stay the hell out of science and we'll stay the hell out of commentary on 14th Century French Literature???
wsucram15 Added Oct 12, 2017 - 2:12pm
Mike..have you ever even seen a bald eagle?   If you have its animal conservation and preservation.  Something the Trump administration has eliminated much more than this for business.  
So the answer to your question is no.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 12, 2017 - 3:48pm
wsucram -
 
YES - I have seen bald eagles!  The first time was on a tour of the Kennedy Space Center 30 years ago.  I have since seen them on occasion in Colorado and Utah while skiing.  I have no problem with conservation!  I have a problem with shitty science fixing "blame the humans" for any perceived malady in nature. 
 
Natural selection is responsible for 99.9999% of all extinctions.  99.999% of all the creatures that have inhabited the Earth are extinct - we didn't kill them all!!!
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:31pm
@Mike Haluska:
"However, what I am saying is that if there are environmental factors that contribute to the rise of autism and other forms of mental or physical illnesses in fetuses, infants, children or adults then those factors need to be minimized as much as humanly possible."
Nobody disagrees with that. The problem is that somebody with no valid scientific proof of causality (e.g. vaccinations CAUSE autism) scares lots of people to do irrational things (like avoid vaccinations)."
In this case Pruitt only listened to industry insiders about the pesticide in question. Why would the head of the EPA only listen to those who profit from its sale and use? Seems like a recipe for bias, don't you think?
"Well, Mike, there are solutions. Streamlining our military budget, no wall, raising taxes on those that can afford it, all of these things can help."
How is cutting spending in one area make it OK to waste money in another area?"
Why is spending money on the health and welfare of the US populace a waste, Mike?
To me, waste is spending money on a giant useless wall that people can tunnel under or climb over is a bigger waste. Cutting fat and limiting golf trips is a better use of tax dollars.
"If your furnace was outdated and causing you to have ridiculously high heating bills, would you replace the furnace or cut your grocery budget so your old furnace can go on wasting money?"
What does that have to do with anything? You would pull money from another part of your budget to buy the furnace, leaving less money for something else. As a homeowner I'd pull money from something I don't need as much for the important thing that I do.
"I agree that more money needs allocation to things like cancer but I also think more money needs allocation to education, both adult and children, healthcare, services to those in need, etc."
"NONE of the above items are within the authority granted to the federal government by the Constitution - a concept that liberals just can't grasp."
Funny, conservatives can't seem to grasp that the world has changed since the founding of this country. The constitution is flexible, it was intended that way.
"The federal treasury was never intended to nor should act as a charity!"
That is not its main purpose, anyway. The treasury pays for things the government needs it to.
"You want to cut the military - that IS the first and foremost responsibility of the federal government!"
No, the primary responsibility of the federal government is to govern, not be a military with a country attached.
"Besides, the vast majority of federal spending is for ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!"
That depends on what you define as "ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!!!!!"
If you are talking about "Safety Net Programs" this is simply not the case:
"Safety net programs: About 9 percent of the federal budget in 2016, or $366 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs increased by only $4 billion between 2015 and 2016, and declined as a share of the budget, as the economy continued to improve.
Safety net programs include: the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit, which assist low- and moderate-income working families; programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance; various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income people, including SNAP (food stamps), school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills; and various other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.
Such programs keep millions of people out of poverty each year. A CBPP analysis using Census’ Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that government safety net programs kept some 36 million people out of poverty in calendar year 2016. Without any government income assistance, either from safety net programs or other income supports like Social Security, the poverty rate would have been 25.3 percent in 2016, nearly double the actual 14.0 percent. And these programs reduced the depth of poverty for millions more, even when not bringing them above the poverty line."

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go

"You still fail to grasp the enormity of the amount of money wasted on "Climate Change"! And what do we have to show for this expenditure? Nothing except demands for more research grants than ever! To put this waste in perspective for you, the cost of the Apollo Missions to the Moon cost $25 billion - we could funded 20 APOLLO MISSIONS with what we wasted on "Climate Change"!!!"
Well, if things don't work out I g
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 12, 2017 - 6:33pm
@Mike Haluska:
Cont...
Well, if things don't work out I guess we can go live on the moon.
I don't know, Mike. Is NASA mentioned in the Constitution? If not, why do we need it?
"For over 40 YEARS we have gotten one "Imminent Doomsday Forecast" after another - and they NEVER HAPPEN! In legitimate science, your theory has to be proven out in REALITY."
No, Mike, sorry. Research shows that climate change is a reality and is getting worse. We don't have 200 years to fix this.

"For some stupid reason "Climate Change" gets a 40 year pass on science and common sense."
Sigh. I've read the research on it, it's very compelling. The funny thing is that the first states affected are Red States like Louisiana, Texas, Florida, etc. Boy, that irony thing is a bitch.
"Can you imagine what would happen if the Pentagon spent $25 billion a year for the past 40 years promising a "flying aircraft carrier" and it never even came close to being built???"
I think a flying aircraft carrier would be really cool but not particularly battle worthy. It's too vulnerable to an attack from below, plus to make it safe for crewmen and crewwomen would be cost prohibitive. It's probably why the Navy hasn't bothered.
"Finally, opposing the use of the federal treasury doesn't mean that I want people to suffer. I agree with your objectives - it is the method I have a big problem with. Since we started using the federal treasury as a charity, the parade of "causes" to be supported has become almost endless. Many of the "causes" are contradictory or opposed by just as many as those that support them."
We don't use the treasury as a charity, Mike.
"Let me give you an example. Planned Parenthood was awarded $510 million this year, despite significant taxpayer opposition. I assume as a liberal you support this use of taxpayer (not yours) money."
I pay taxes, Mike. It's my money as well and I have no objections to it at all. Planned Parenthood assists women when they can't afford care.
"Suppose I managed to get Congress to grant the NRA $510 million for "gun safety programs". There would be an uproar on the left, but why is your "cause" more worthy than mine? We BOTH pay taxes, right?"
My suggestion is you contact your local representative in order to make that happen. I myself wouldn't object to such a thing.
The difference is the causes I believe in help people in need and look for ways to keep our environment clean.
"This is why charities should NOT be funded by government." If you feel Planned Parenthood is a cause worthy of your financial support, go ahead and donate half of your paycheck if you want - I won't lift a finger to protest. We should BOTH be free to sponsor whatever charity we want using our own resources and not use the government to reach into other pockets without their consent. I trust you think that is fair and reasonable for all parties concerned.
Do you think the services I listed above are "charities?"
Mike Haluska Added Oct 12, 2017 - 12:42pm
Follow Me
Delete comment
Jeff K -
"The bald eagle population was decreasing long before (1820's) DDT came into use. Given that DDT was supposed to be used as a means to fight the insects carrying malaria, I wonder how the hell it got introduced into the malaria-free environment of Alaska???"
Because people used it in Alaska.
"EVEN IF (that's still an IF) DDT caused the egg shell problem, why stop its use in regions all around the Frakkin' world where millions of people suffered and died needlessly? Do you think people dying in Asia and Africa give a rat's ass about a bird in America???"
Um, Mike, this is not just an issue with the Bald Eagle or just the United States.
"As long as left wing pseudo-scientists are allowed to make decisions regarding science this crap will continue."
Well, they are scientists. I think they are qualified to make those kind of decisions.
"How about we make a deal? You guys stay the hell out of science and we'll stay the hell out of commentary on 14th Century French Literature???"
Are you a scientist, Mike? What does French Literature have to do with anything?
Utpal Patel Added Oct 13, 2017 - 7:41am
My sympathies for your son’s condition but coal is not the reason he has autism. Unlike the Obama EPA, which enacted rules and regulations without any regard for cost or benefit, a Trump EPA understands that a balance between the two must be addressed. Not once in your article do you even mention the two. For you it’s all about an EPA making policies tougher. I applaud Pruitt for wanting a clean environment and jobs.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 13, 2017 - 9:01am
@Utpal Patel
"My sympathies for your son’s condition but coal is not the reason he has autism."
 
I never said that it was.  If you read one of my comments you'll note I said I thought it was genetic and not environmental.
 
"Unlike the Obama EPA, which enacted rules and regulations without any regard for cost or benefit,"
 
That's not really the EPA's job.
 
 
"a Trump EPA understands that a balance between the two must be addressed."
 
This EPA, by all indications, will always side with industry.  Safety concerns are not their priority.
 
"Not once in your article do you even mention the two. For you it’s all about an EPA making policies tougher."
 
No, for me the EPA is responsible for keeping our air, water and earth as clean as possible.
 
"I applaud Pruitt for wanting a clean environment"
 
He only wants that as long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.
 
"and jobs."
 
I actually know Pruitt better than you.  He was the Attorney General for Oklahoma and spent his time wasting state money in suing the federal government.  BTW, in the 10 years or so Republicans have held an absolute majority they've thoroughly screwed our budget to a fare-the-well.  Our education system sucks, our vital services are facing massive cuts and the elderly and children are going to pay for it.
 
Anyway, Pruitt was and is nothing more than a petroleum industry whore.  He took that attitude with him to Washington D.C.
Ray Joseph Cormier Added Oct 13, 2017 - 9:01am
You have that wrong! Pruitt is sacrificing clean environment for temporary jobs.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 13, 2017 - 10:13am
I have more respect for whores than Scott Pruitt. They at least provide a service some people want.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 13, 2017 - 11:17am
Jeff - I will address your points:
 
"In this case Pruitt only listened to industry insiders about the pesticide in question. Why would the head of the EPA only listen to those who profit from its sale and use? Seems like a recipe for bias, don't you think?"
 
As opposed to a half-dozen of his predecessors who only listened to lawyers from the Sierra Club???  That's "unbiased input"???
 
"Funny, conservatives can't seem to grasp that the world has changed since the founding of this country. The constitution is flexible, it was intended that way."
 
What's even "funnier" is how we have a legitimate means of altering the Constitution that liberals always IGNORE - AMENDMENTS!  The Constitution was NEVER designed to be "flexible" - it is a rule book that limits the authority of the federal government.  NO SINGLE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT can "make up rules as they go along" - that's what countries elsewhere in the world do because they DON'T have a Constitution!!!  If we continue to allow either party to "make up rules as they go along" then we no longer have Rule of Law - we have "Rule by Whomever is in Power" - is that what you want?  I sure don't!
 
"Do you think the services I listed above are "charities?"
 
They had better be charities!  Their exemption from income taxes is based on their section 501(c)(3) classification!!! 
 
"I think a flying aircraft carrier would be really cool but not particularly battle worthy. It's too vulnerable to an attack from below, plus to make it safe for crewmen and crewwomen would be cost prohibitive. It's probably why the Navy hasn't bothered."
 
Cute comment intended to deflect from the fact that you have no rational response to my point.  Shouldn't the utter lack of ANY tangible results, accurate forecasts, establishment of causality or any practical solutions after 40 years and $510 Billion spent have any bearing on the credibility of these people? 
 
"Are you a scientist, Mike? What does French Literature have to do with anything?"
 
Yes - I hold an engineering degree from Purdue University, a licensed Professional Engineer with over 40 years of experience.  I understand and practice Scientific Method, unlike the pseudo-scientists of "Climate Change".  My alluding to "French Literature" was an effort to point out that in previous administrations, many people in key positions (EPA, Energy, etc.) were unqualified educationally and lacked experience.  Think I exaggerate?  Read the background of Obama's "Science Czar" (glad we got rid of "Czars"):
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElM6Ov1TIg
 
 
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 13, 2017 - 11:25am
Jeff - finally your most ridiculous response:
 
"We don't use the treasury as a charity, Mike."
 
REALLY???  When person A gets money from another person B and neither has to repay it or work for it, that is CHARITY!!!  When person A gets the government to confiscate money from person B and give it to them, that is GOVERNMENT FORCED CHARITY!!!
 
You liberals can try to "euphemism your way out" of anything, but it doesn't work very well anymore.  Nobody is "entitled" to the income or property of another person.  Politicians who use their positions to take money from one taxpayer and "give" it to another to establish and buy a voter base are thieves and con-men. 
John G Added Oct 13, 2017 - 7:49pm
Like 2 bald men fighting over a comb.
John G Added Oct 13, 2017 - 11:47pm
It is operationally impossible for the US government to pay for universal healthcare, the military, a tin of baked beans, or anything else with the proceeds collected in federal taxes, because the US government spends through direct high powered money creation, high powered money is the instrument that settles federal tax liabilities, and federal spending must proceed federal taxation in order for ‘private’ entities to have the US dollars required to pay the tax.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 14, 2017 - 12:31am
@ John G
"Like 2 bald men fighting over a comb."
 
Look, it's a jackass playing with himself.
John G Added Oct 14, 2017 - 1:18am
You really are an unpleasant piece of work Kelly.
Like a standard liberal, you've fallen for the standard right wing bait of 'how are you going to pay for it?'
Then you lose the ensuing argument (which is an argument about no real world condition anyway).
But that's fine by me. Keep losing to their fake arguments all you like.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 15, 2017 - 9:04pm
@ John G
 
"You really are an unpleasant piece of work Kelly."
 
Really?  I've always thought I'm a delight.  Are you saying that's not true?

"Like a standard liberal,"
 
Instead of some sort of weirdo, anarchist/leftist like you?  That's not setting the bar very high.
 
"you've fallen for the standard right wing bait of 'how are you going to pay for it?'"
 
That's all Right-Wingers want to talk about.

"Then you lose the ensuing argument (which is an argument about no real world condition anyway)."
 
Who says I lost?  I'm just kinda busy right now.
 

"But that's fine by me. Keep losing to their fake arguments all you like."
 
How many ways can I tell you I don't give a fuck about what you think?
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 15, 2017 - 10:21pm
@ Mike Haluska:
"Jeff - I will address your points:
 
"In this case Pruitt only listened to industry insiders about the pesticide in question. Why would the head of the EPA only listen to those who profit from its sale and use? Seems like a recipe for bias, don't you think?"
As opposed to a half-dozen of his predecessors who only listened to lawyers from the Sierra Club??? That's "unbiased input"???"
 
Um, a "half-dozen of Pruitt's predecessors," half of those came under Republican Presidents, Bush jr, senior and Regan.  Are you saying those presidents had owl-kissing, tree hugging liberals as heads of the EPA?
 
But, my own opinion is that listening to chemical companies who have a vested interest in selling their chemicals is a bad idea.

"Funny, conservatives can't seem to grasp that the world has changed since the founding of this country. The constitution is flexible, it was intended that way."
"What's even "funnier" is how we have a legitimate means of altering the Constitution that liberals always IGNORE - AMENDMENTS! The Constitution was NEVER designed to be "flexible" - "
 
Wrong, Mike. The founders understood the need for flexibility in government, which is what you actually addressed below.
 
"it is a rule book that limits the authority of the federal government. NO SINGLE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT can "make up rules as they go along" - that's what countries elsewhere in the world do because they DON'T have a Constitution!!! If we continue to allow either party to "make up rules as they go along" then we no longer have Rule of Law - we have "Rule by Whomever is in Power" - is that what you want? I sure don't!"
 
You seem to descend into hysterics a lot, Mike.
In any case, we both agree that Congress can propose legislation that it can pass and the president can sign, right? The EPA itself is based upon several federal laws that it was created to regulate and regulatory agencies are perfectly legal (as long as they are based upon federal law).
You can read about the history of the EPA and the various laws it regulates:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency
 
"Do you think the services I listed above are "charities?"
 
"They had better be charities! Their exemption from income taxes is based on their section 501(c)(3) classification!!!"
 
? Did I say something unclear? Because I think you and I are not talking about the same thing.
Food stamps are not "charity," neither are daycare subsidies, LIHEAP, SSP or any other services that are based on federal money.
 
"I think a flying aircraft carrier would be really cool but not particularly battle worthy. It's too vulnerable to an attack from below, plus to make it safe for crewmen and crewwomen would be cost prohibitive. It's probably why the Navy hasn't bothered."
"Cute comment intended to deflect from the fact that you have no rational response to my point. Shouldn't the utter lack of ANY tangible results, accurate forecasts, establishment of causality or any practical solutions after 40 years and $510 Billion spent have any bearing on the credibility of these people?"
 
Is this the part where I provide proof of climate change and you shriek about liberal conspiracies or charity? Or, something to that affect?
 
"Are you a scientist, Mike? What does French Literature have to do with anything?"
"Yes - I hold an engineering degree from Purdue University, a licensed Professional Engineer with over 40 years of experience."
 
Excellent, so you know how to design and build shit. Good for you!!!!
 
"I understand and practice Scientific Method, unlike the pseudo-scientists of "Climate Change". "
 
To be honest, Mike (and please don't take this the wrong way), you've shown where your biases lie. You are one of the most Trumpling individuals I've met on-line. You are one of those who will stoutly deny climate change because it doesn't fit your belief system. That's reality, Mike.
 
"My alluding to "French Literature" was an effort to point out that in previous administrations, many people in key positions (EPA, Energy, etc.) were unqualified educationally and lacked experience. Think I exaggerate? Read the background of Obama's "Science Czar" (glad we got rid of "Czars"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElM6Ov1TIg"
 
You mean this guy?
https://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/right-wing-attacks-on-science-adviser-continue/
 
Mike, I fact check everything. YouTube videos don't mean shit to me. I don't take them at face value and I sure as shit take anything and everything Fox News vomits up with a ginormous spoonful of salt.
 
John G Added Oct 15, 2017 - 11:27pm
It is operationally impossible for the US government to pay for universal healthcare, the military, a tin of baked beans, or anything else with the proceeds collected in federal taxes, because the US government spends through direct high powered money creation, high powered money is the instrument that settles federal tax liabilities, and federal spending must proceed federal taxation in order for ‘private’ entities to have the US dollars required to pay the tax.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 16, 2017 - 12:32am
Talking to yourself again, John?
Bill H. Added Oct 16, 2017 - 1:13am
 
Once you realize that the Trump administration is all about profits for Corporations and the fulfillment of Trumps wishes and biases, it all becomes clear.
Trump and his cronies could care less about any environmental issues.
Just like many commenters here on WB, Trump and his cronies live only for today and the only thing that matters for tomorrow is the month end stockholder report. 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 16, 2017 - 11:57am
Jeff - arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel:
 
"Are you saying those presidents had owl-kissing, tree hugging liberals as heads of the EPA?"
 
YES!
 
"In any case, we both agree that Congress can propose legislation that it can pass and the president can sign, right?"
 
NOPE!  Congress isn't supposed to pass any legislation that is in disagreement with the Constitution.  They have done it anyway since FDR because of the Great Depression and SCOTUS just ignores it.  For the EPA to be Constitutionally valid, there should be an amendment passed by Congress and ratified by 37 states authorizing the Federal Government the powers given to the EPA.   
 
"Food stamps are not "charity," neither are daycare subsidies, LIHEAP, SSP or any other services that are based on federal money."
 
Really???  The government takes part of my earnings, allocates it to H&HS and they dole it out as they see fit.  There is no such thing as "federal money" - for the government to "give" something to one person it must first "confiscate" it from another person.  Maybe you're right though now that I think about - it's more like extortion than charity since if I refuse I go to jail!
 
"To be honest, Mike (and please don't take this the wrong way), you've shown where your biases lie. You are one of the most Trumpling individuals I've met on-line."
 
I will take it "the wrong way" because it is!  If you had read any of my articles or posts years before President Trump was elected, you would notice they haven't changed a bit.  The more you scream "DENIER", the more unscientific you become - just like the rest of your people who have made "Climate Change" into a religious dogma that can't be questioned!  Show me another field of science where skeptics of a theory are denounced as "DENIERS", "Flat Earther's", etc. - you can't!
 
Your referral:
https://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/right-wing-attacks-on-science-adviser-continue/
 
just proves my point!  John Holdren stood there in front of Congress and had to disavow his long standing position on ridiculous pseudo-science he wrote about and endorsed!  He wants the job - what's he going to do, say "Yeah, I still think that stuff like forced sterilization, culling "undesirables from the gene pool, forced abortions, etc. are a great idea"?  And don't give me this "second author" crap either - you can find dozens of article written solely by Holdren that propose even more ridiculous crap.  The very title of the organization:
 
                                      SCIENCE PROGRESS
                      where science, technology and policy meet
 
is total pseudo-science in and of itself!  Science and government policy should NEVER mix!  Remember Eugenics????  Hitler, Stalin and Mao set government policy for scientists to achieve, how did that work out???
 
John G Added Oct 16, 2017 - 4:18pm
Micky: There is no such thing as "federal money" - for the government to "give" something to one person it must first "confiscate" it from another person.  
 
I've asked you this several times before Mikey and you've never once answered.
How do you think $US come into existence?
 
It is operationally impossible for the US government to pay for universal healthcare, the military, a tin of baked beans, or anything else with the proceeds collected in federal taxes, because the US government spends through direct high powered money creation. High powered money is the instrument that settles federal tax liabilities and federal spending must proceed federal taxation in order for ‘private’ entities to have the US dollars required to pay the tax.
 
Read it Mikey.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 16, 2017 - 5:48pm
@Mike Haluska:
"Jeff - arguing with you is like shooting fish in a barrel:"
 
LOL, you keep thinking that, sunshine. 
 
"Are you saying those presidents had owl-kissing, tree hugging liberals as heads of the EPA?"
YES!"
 
Really?
Mike, please. Regan's first head of the EPA was lawyer (and Republican) who downsized the EPA:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Gorsuch_Burford
Now, the EPA heads under Bush Jr. and Sr. were actually reasonable people who tried to balance business needs versus environmental needs. I'd hardly call them owl-kissing, tree-hugging liberals, in fact, I'd take any of them over the whore Pruitt.

"In any case, we both agree that Congress can propose legislation that it can pass and the president can sign, right?"
"NOPE! Congress isn't supposed to pass any legislation that is in disagreement with the Constitution. They have done it anyway since FDR because of the Great Depression and SCOTUS just ignores it. For the EPA to be Constitutionally valid, there should be an amendment passed by Congress and ratified by 37 states authorizing the Federal Government the powers given to the EPA."
 
So, all of those cases made in front of the Supreme Court regarding challenges to EPA regulations that the court subsequently upheld (with a few exceptions), that was the court ignoring the Constitution?
Mike, FFS, this is the Supreme Court. You lose, I trust their opinion over what sounds like a half-assed Trumpling opinion.
 
"Food stamps are not "charity," neither are daycare subsidies, LIHEAP, SSP or any other services that are based on federal money."
"Really??? The government takes part of my earnings, allocates it to H&HS and they dole it out as they see fit."
 
Um, yes. That part part of your earnings the government takes are called "taxes." The government then uses that money to run the cost of what is called "government."
So, if you need to, Mike, you then have access to "services" the "government" provides. So, for example, if you lose your job and need them, the "government" has "services" that you can then access as needed.
But, as I said previously, up to 70% of welfare recipients work and the taxes they pay back into the system then subsidize them. So, in essence, they help pay the system back.
 
"There is no such thing as "federal money" -
Once they tax it is their money.
 
"for the government to "give" something to one person it must first "confiscate" it from another person."
 
Mike, the government needs money to function, just like anything else. Are you saying the government cannot collect taxes?
There is not a country on earth that doesn't collect revenue through some type of taxation.
 
"Maybe you're right though now that I think about - it's more like extortion than charity since if I refuse I go to jail!"
 
So, let's see. It's stealing if the government taxes you and uses the money to operate? Mike, FFS, do you realize how ridiculous you sound?
 
"To be honest, Mike (and please don't take this the wrong way), you've shown where your biases lie. You are one of the most Trumpling individuals I've met on-line."
"I will take it "the wrong way" because it is!"
 
To be honest, I knew you would.
 
"If you had read any of my articles or posts years before President Trump was elected, you would notice they haven't changed a bit."
 
So, you've always sounded this ridiculous?
 
"The more you scream "DENIER", the more unscientific you become - just like the rest of your people who have made "Climate Change" into a religious dogma that can't be questioned!"
 
LOL, WTF have I heard this before??????
 
"Show me another field of science where skeptics of a theory are denounced as "DENIERS", "Flat Earther's", etc. - you can't!"
 
Well, those who believe in a "Flat Earth....."
 
Your referral:
https://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/right-wing-attacks-on-science-adviser-continue/
 
"just proves my point!"
 
You are incredibly selective on how you perceive things.
 
"John Holdren stood there in front of Congress and had to disavow his long standing position on ridiculous pseudo-science he wrote about and endorsed! He wants the job - what's he going to do, say "Yeah, I still think that stuff like forced sterilization, culling "undesirables from the gene pool, forced abortions, etc. are a great idea"? And don't give me this "second author" crap either - you can find dozens of article written solely by Holdren that propose even more ridiculous crap. The very title of the organization:"
 
So, even if I
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 16, 2017 - 5:56pm
cont...
So, even if I agree that Holdren really believed those things....I don't, he listed his objections in the article.....that doesn't mean that he didn't change his mind in the intervening time, Mike. People change.
 
"SCIENCE PROGRESS
where science, technology and policy meet
is total pseudo-science in and of itself! Science and government policy should NEVER mix! Remember Eugenics???? Hitler, Stalin and Mao set government policy for scientists to achieve, how did that work out???"
 
Funny thing, Hitler based many of his Eugenics Policies on various United States policies enacted by individual states.
 
Occasionally they have to meet, Mike.  Remember the Atomic Bomb, not to mention all of the other breakthroughs caused by Government/Science collaboration?  
 
Mike, I realize you and other Trumplings wish to live in a simpler time with no electricity or running water, when you could pollute with impunity and big "gubmint" didn't exist.  Sorry, we grew up.
John G Added Oct 16, 2017 - 11:35pm
It is operationally impossible for the US government to pay for universal healthcare, the military, a tin of baked beans, or anything else with the proceeds collected in federal taxes, because the US government spends through direct high powered money creation. High powered money is the instrument that settles federal tax liabilities and federal spending must proceed federal taxation in order for ‘private’ entities to have the US dollars required to pay the tax.
Saint George Added Oct 18, 2017 - 3:54am
We should abolish the EPA entirely.
Mike Haluska Added Oct 18, 2017 - 4:33pm
Jeffrey - your statement:
 
"Mike, I realize you and other Trumplings wish to live in a simpler time with no electricity or running water, when you could pollute with impunity and big "gubmint" didn't exist.  Sorry, we grew up."
 
is typical of the left when they can't refute a rational position with a rational response.  Your tried and tired "Saul Alinksy" tactic of shaming or insulting your opponent won't work.  False equivalencies and associations don't work either.  Your example of the Manhattan Project as just a "science government collaboration" is foolish as well.  Our nation was at war with possibly the most dangerous tyrant to ever threaten humanity - the Manhattan Project was an act of mutual self-defense.
 
Want to know why the EPA is politicized?  Take the time (as I did) to see who is actually running the agency and making decisions on hiring.  Virtually everyone with any decision making authority wouldn't know legitimate science if it bit them on the ass!  They're all lawyers, public policy wonks and liberal arts majors who couldn't find a job in the private sector with their unmarketable degrees but had political connections.  (Senator XYZ of the Senate Environmental Oversight Committee has a son-in-law that just graduated with his BA in 14th Century French Literature from Dartmouth and needed a job - we understand!)
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 11:18am
John G - your statement:
 
"How do you think $US come into existence?"
 
leads me to believe we are talking across purposes.  I agree 100% that the actual "creation" of paper currency is done by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing using printing facilities in  
 
My point is that the intrinsic value of money is based on the general population's belief that the paper can be freely exchanged for goods and services.  Without this fundamental belief, the paper currency isn't worth the proverbial "paper it's printed on".
 
Dr. Walt Williams example of the grocer exchanging 3 dollar bills (3 pieces of paper he can't eat, wear, etc.) for a gallon of milk is an excellent example of this belief in the VALUE - not the EXISTENCE - of paper currency. 
 
Since the average person can't "print money", he must first "serve his fellow man" in exchange for money.  The dollar bills he receives as wages are de facto "certificates of service".  In this manner we all are motivated financially and in our own rational self interest to serve our fellow man FIRST.  There is no coercion involved, it is the fairest and moral system of exchange/trade yet devised. 
  
Mike Haluska Added Oct 19, 2017 - 11:20am
(typo above) - should continue:
 
using printing facilities in Washington, DC and Fort Worth, TX.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Oct 19, 2017 - 8:37pm
@Mike Haluska:
”Jeffrey - your statement:

"Mike, I realize you and other Trumplings wish to live in a simpler time with no electricity or running water, when you could pollute with impunity and big "gubmint" didn't exist. Sorry, we grew up."

is typical of the left when they can't refute a rational position with a rational response. Your tried and tired "Saul Alinksy" tactic of shaming or insulting your opponent won't work.”
 
What rational position?  The one where Government doesn’t have the right to tax anyone?
 
 
“False equivalencies and associations don't work either. Your example of the Manhattan Project as just a "science government collaboration" is foolish as well. Our nation was at war with possibly the most dangerous tyrant to ever threaten humanity - the Manhattan Project was an act of mutual self-defense.”
 
So is clean water, sewage systems, flood control, etc., etc.  All of these things are an example of science and government collaborating.

“Want to know why the EPA is politicized?”
 
Do tell.
 
 
“Take the time (as I did) to see who is actually running the agency and making decisions on hiring. Virtually everyone with any decision making authority wouldn't know legitimate science if it bit them on the ass!”
 
Like Trumplings if it doesn’t have the Fox News stamp of approval?
 
“They're all lawyers, public policy wonks and liberal arts majors who couldn't find a job in the private sector with their unmarketable degrees but had political connections. (Senator XYZ of the Senate Environmental Oversight Committee has a son-in-law that just graduated with his BA in 14th Century French Literature from Dartmouth and needed a job - we understand!)”
 
Why don’t you show us the fruits of your research, Mike?

Recent Articles by Writers Jeffrey Kelly follows.