More BS EPA Rules Coming our Way!

The EPA is proposing to tighten the already strict ozone standards in their covert attempt to drive the last bit of manufacturing from our shores. However we do have a chance to make our opinions known, but it must be done by Oct. 9.

The enemy isn't cheap imports from China, its our own people who are the true enemy.

Tell the EPA to not tighten Ozone Regulations

Almost wish it would go through. As Richard Feynmann once said, you can't fool reality forever.

Just too bad that a lot of manufacturing is the knowledge in people's heads. Put them out of work and that knowledge erodes and goes away with time. So we have to work that much harder to put things back once the madness goes away.

Jim Rozen, are you watching? This is the kind of stuff I've been complaining about - activist driven "science" is hurting our competitiveness.

Gene

Rick,

Thanks for the link, I sent mine.

Eric

They aren't trying to drive busines from America, they are trying to find more creative ways of taxing it to support government dependency
and citizen control scams.
Algore and friend have become millionaires with carbon crdeit scams and now the government will so the same with a carbon tax.
It is nothing but a scam that stupid Americans on the left will buy into because of guilt and self-loathing. Junkscience offer 125k for anyone who can prove global warming is man-made, no takers, should be an easy buck for someone if global waming is a fact.
Algore refuses to debate anyone about the subject, why?
Nasa's supposed whistle blower turned out to be on George Soro's payroll.
But not to worry, I have faith that you will vote in Hillary and be poorer and less free for it but you will be able to feel good about yourselves as you pay homage to your new industrial and religous masters the chinese and muslims.

but you will be able to feel good about yourselves as you pay homage to your new industrial and religous masters the chinese and muslims

Click to expand...

Hmmm...is the EPA solely to blame for the lack of our competitiveness, or is it folks like Carlbide Carl in India and BILLIONS like him that will work for pennies a day and an American public that's addicted to the crap they sh*t out? Just a small observation...

OK, I will play liberal.

So you don't like new EPA regulations, this means you don't want any environmental laws. Then all of your big corporate friends can dump all the toxic waste they want. So why do you want our children to swim in pools of mercury and have their school filled of dioxin. Don't you care about our children, air, water, world. We should protest and ban all chemicals, electicity and open fire, these cause global damage.

Not what I said at all, I said it was one more way to tax you and that America will fall for it because of liberal guilt being too lazy to speak out against snake oil salesmen.
To take it to another level, perhaps everyone could be sterilized, children are little carbon producers, carbon is becoming illegal so are not the parents crimminals?

Tom, are you bi-polar? You must live in an all or nothing world to have written that post. To be in opposition to tightening already high standards for ozone is not the same as wishing for the abolition of all environmental laws. We haven't even fully implemented the current ozone standard yet, but the EPA wants even stricter regs.

At what point do we say that a certain amount of pollution is a neccessary evil of our industrialized society, and that the standards should be at a certain limit but no higher? The law of diminishing returns comes into play here, as well as the law of unintended consequences (i.e. loss of manufacturing jobs and increased costs to everyone).

Also are we really doing the environment any good if through our ultra tight environmental regulations we force manufacturing to other countries without any regs?

Carbide Carl, have you ever done or written anything to cotribute to the information exchange that is the object of this whole forum? Furthermore, do you even know how to operate any machine tools, much less be qualified to call yourself a machinst?
All I have seen you do is hang out here in the only topic allowing political comments and make snide remarks.
Dave

Yes Dave I have, I point out your flawed liberal
schemes.You must be another whose idea of debate and exchanging of ideas consists of everyone agreeing with your point of view.
I can run a lathe and a host of other machine tools in a competent matter,design aircraft parts
and a host of other tasks.

Rick, I was hoping to make a bit of a joke here. It seems that any time anyone brings up anything against more EPA regulations, raising taxes or any other increase or nonsense regulation the left nuts will go to the full other extreme position. This has been seen here time after time. I thought that my post was written ridiculous enough to be funny, but I guess in these days ridiculous is the new norm for our congress and senate. Most folks seem to agree as their approval rating is around ten percent now.

There will be a tax imposed on everything, just as soon as someone comes up with a meter to put on it, remember the cow fart methane trouble a while back? they said cows farting was hurting the ozone and wanted ranchers to pay a tax to help researchers find a cure. I haven't heard anything in a while, I just kind of figured the gas meter was hard to attatch to a cow and even harder to keep it on.

I've said this before, I'll say it again.

The EPA and OSHA were created in 1970.

We were losing our manufacturing well before 1970.

Here is why, as predicted by the very same U.S. leaders who built this country:

YEAR----------TARIFF % (TARIFF REVENUE / TOTAL FEDERAL REVENUEx100%)
1789------------99.5%
1800------------83.7%
1825------------92.0%
1850------------90.9%
1875------------54.6%
1900------------41.1%
1925------------15.0%
1950------------1.0%
1975------------1.3%
2000------------1.0%

source: Statistical Abstract of the United States www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/statab.html
*1997 is the last year that the U.S. Statistical Abstract published customs revenues

But we seem bent on proving that the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.


Steve

To quote one of my favorite assholes: They will take my plasma arc cutter "from my cold, dead hands."


the real problem is too many people and not enough resources... over population, you know? the reasons for that are too many to explain in one short post, and I'm sure that I don't understand them all. Suffice to say, if there were a whole lot less people, there would be a whole lot less pollution, and we could all go back to dumping just about anything any time any place. but there are a whole lot of people with unrealistic notions about how to control the population, like promoting abstinance amongst teenagers, so we are going to continue having too many people, and continue to overburden the eco system in which we live because of it.

Let's face it, half of the world or more is just going to have to kiss off and die if we are going to keep up the levels of "growth" and consumption that we need to keep the economy rolling. Or someone is going to have to get innovative and figure out some clever solution so that an unlimited number of people can all have a piece of the finite pie. or maybe we could all get by with a little bit less? who knows.

someone tell mit romny (and my brother) to stop having so many darn kids (Two seems like a responsible number). They are all eating so many cows and farting so much themselves that the ozone layer is shrinking as we speak.

"too many people and not enough resources" - nope.

If we were short of resources or energy for that matter there would not be a single garbage dump on the planet. We dump millions of tons of recyclable materials in landfill each year. We make bottles from petrochemical plastic instead of recyclable glass, toss metals in the garbage and fail to use the garbage to produce power or food waste to produce dirt. Oh, lets not forget we are turning tons of edible food into fuel for our cars when we are by no means out of oil and the whole process has a higher net cost than the oil based fuel.

The problem is most people want it all, want it cheap and will pay anything tomorrow to have it today. When tomorrow arrives the survivors might change things, but not until then.

Ted

like I said, we need more efficient use (and disposal) of what we have, or we need less people. I don't see either one happening any time soon... you can consume all you want since we still have the resources, but there would be a lot less trouble on the waste side, if there were a lot less people. If you look at it a rather large part of civilization is organized around the need to get rid of waste safetly. currently we are getting close to exceeding the facilities of the sanitation department. at least as it is currently run. If people are going to keep consuming and disposing of waste in the numbers that they currently do, the only real option is tighter standards from government pollution controll agencies.

William E. Williams

The problem is most people want it all, want it cheap and will pay anything tomorrow to have it today. When tomorrow arrives the survivors might change things, but not until then.

Click to expand...

Most people have to work in order to earn money so they can buy food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Most people are thus, producing goods or services at those jobs.

Those goods and services must be consumed if the people are to have a job.

Unfortunately, the producers don't get paid enough to buy back their output of goods and services, goods and services that have to be consumed if these producers are to feed families, pay mortgages, car payments, etc.

The CEOs, stockholders and owners of the companies increase the prices of the goods and services to create the profit margin used to build their own investment portfolios.

The greater the profit, the lower the wages of the producers relative to their output - output that has to be consumed if these producers will have a job.

If you expect the average American to stop going into debt, you better find a new economic order, because this one won't allow it.

This free trade disaster has accelerated the debt curve of the American producer because it needs Americans to consume the output but those same Americans don't earn any wages from tennis shoes made in China.

The Chinese can't afford to consume those tennis shoes because they are developing the exact same paradox as we are in this country.

There is no solution to the eternal debt, unemployment, and bankruptcy.

Steve

"Carbide Carl, have you ever done or written anything to contribute ..."

No. That's a big. Fat. No.

He's a troll. Plain and simple. He's a one
hit wonder who exists only to rile folks up.
It's almost like somebody's paying him to do this.

First words are always "it's al gore's fault,
it's clinton's fault, it's the liberals doing it."

What the heck. He doesn't post to any of the
other sub-fora associated with the board. I
suspect he's been here before and had his ID
banned, and is back under a new guise. The
moderator can tell if he's really posting from
where he claims to be from, by his IP address.

If they don't match up then something's wrong.

In the meantime carl's been relegated to the
"does not matter what the troll says" catagory,
in my book.

Jim

Most people have to work in order to earn money so they can buy food, clothing, shelter, etc.

Most people are thus, producing goods or services at those jobs.

Those goods and services must be consumed if the people are to have a job.

Click to expand...

These points are all true, but were I would disagree is that it is necessary to spend more than is earned to get by. This might be true if you drive a new car & live in a new mini mansion and don't think there is any other place to shop but the boutique, all on Walmart wages. There are just some people that don't understand you don't need and can't buy everything you see on TV. On the other hand, a great many responsible adults manage to get by & even thrive by means of work and reasonable choices.

What you are talking about is efficiency of conversion. Such that for the value of X goods or services produced one should get X compensation. Forget it, this does not happen! If you are sane, you are selling your labor at a profit to your employer. Your employer is selling the goods or services you produce at a profit too. Thus you never get what you produce, but you never need it either.

What this zero sum thinking fails to account for is time. Time is a unlimited natural resource that is consumed and sold in the production of goods and services. I spent some of MY time education myself, making my time worth more. I then SOLD my valuable time to my boss in exchange for a pay check. My sister spent more of her time education herself and so she can sell her time for more than me. Some yob down the street spent his time smoking dope, nobody wants his time, so he does not get much money for it.

This is why I generally don't subscribe to the theory of things being better if we have less people. Less people mean less time will be available for the production of goods and services. We will be cutting access to necessary resource in the production of goods and services. Having all your resources in one room won't get you squat until you buy the time of some people to do something with them.

Ted

William E. Williams

If you are sane, you are selling your labor at a profit to your employer. Your employer is selling the goods or services you produce at a profit too. Thus you never get what you produce, but you never need it either.

Click to expand...

This is where 99% of the people in this forum lose the logic. After repeating this a billion times I saved myself the trouble and here it is:

Some people say a man is made outta mud
A poor man's made outta muscle and blood
Muscle and blood and skin and bones
A mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
I picked up my shovel and I walked to the mine
I loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
And the straw boss said "Well, a-bless my soul"

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take a coal miner, Bob. Give him a shovel and he digs 1 ton of coal in one hour. He gets paid $10 per ton for the coal he dug.

Come winter time, Bob needs to buy back some of that coal he dug up. But now he gets charged $20 a ton for what he was paid $10 for. Bob has to borrow money to buy back what he was paid only $10 per ton for.

Who does Bob go in debt to?

Of course, the mine owner. The mine owner is who received the other $10 per ton of coal.

Jack works in a bra factory..

Jack makes 1 bra in an hour and gets paid $10 for each bra.

Mary makes jocks.

Mary makes 1 jock in an hour and gets paid $10 dollars for it.

Neither Jack nor Mary will buy what they produce.

But they must buy each others’ output if they are to have a job.

When Jack and Mary go to the store, they find the bra and the jock both cost $20.

The owners of the bra and jock factory in pursuit of profit increased the prices of the goods, making Jack and Mary unable to buy what they produced without going into debt.

They must borrow the money from the bra and jock factory owners to buy back what they produced.

This is my scenario of what is happening to the American family. As millions of wives and children go into the work force in an attempt to keep their families out of bankruptcy and maintain their standard of living, they are increasing the rate of debt that they must fall into to consume the very same items they produce.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE IN DEBT TO THE COMPANY STORE.


Our society must consume what it produces if people are to work.

The people who own the factories, mines, etc. have the money to buy the goods that the producers can't afford to buy.

In America the CEO's average about 460 times greater income than their hourly workers do, before stock options are counted.

But are these factory and mine owners interested in buying 460 bras, jocks, or 460 tons of coal?

The people who own the means of production increase the price of the products way beyond what they themselves care to consume. Instead, the owners of the means of production "invest" a greater and greater share of their profit, in effect, loaning the producers the cash necessary for them to buy back the very same goods they produce.

The result is the American family is getting flushed down the toilet of ever increasing debt to buy back their own production, IMHO.

My scenario predicts that consumer debt must continue to increase with no end. The only correction possible is for families to go into bankruptcy. In time, as this cycle of debt and bankruptcy continues, it will transfer the assets of the American families to the people to whom they are in debt to, the owners of the means of production.

The long term result will be a two-class society, the creditor class and the debtor class. The middle class, a class of people who were able to hold on to their assets until death without transferring their assets to the creditors through bankruptcy, will have been liquidated, their offspring unable to hold on to the accumulated family assets due to the increased disparity between production and income.

Prov 22:16 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.


Steve