Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "White House Planning DEEP Cuts To EPA" video.

  1. The state and local government can take care of the environment. There is nothing that suggests that cutting the EPA will lead to more pollution. This is nothing more than fear mongering by the left who is scared that the world will fall apart if the federal government did not have so much power.
    3
  2. NerdyChat, that is not true. One, look at Flint. They still have problems. Next, the federal government has passed unnecessary laws in the pass. For example, the Violence Against Women's Act was unnecessary as every state has laws against domestic violence.
    1
  3. Iron Bowtie, states had their own EPAs and can take care of the environment just fine. States cannot build their own military though, so your comparison is poor. On education states run and fund K-12 education. Federal funding is minute. On roads 3/4 of funding for roads is at the state and local level.
    1
  4. Hugh Miller, because of the Commerce Clause no state can pollute another state. So if pollution from one state were to enter another state that exceeds their standards than the federal government can get involved. That's it. We need it to be local as it is managed better and if financially better.
    1
  5. "You realize that the Federal EPA collaborates with and helps fund state and local agencies, right?" I know, which is unnecessary. For funding, cut federal taxes and funding is not necessary as the states can have more money. "Downsizing the EPA budget at the Federal level downsizes the budgets of Local and State protection agencies." Not necessarily. "Eliminating that collaboration hurts us." Nope, we were fine before the EPA, what makes you think we won't be now?
    1
  6. Again, all that can be done at the state and local level. They can set the the laws and enforce them. Cutting the federal EPA is necessary as it is one, unconstitutional, and two, unnecessary.
    1
  7. Alex, if one state allows pollution that pollutes another state to a degree it exceeds that state's standard, than the federal government can step in. But that's it. You say gases move beyond state line, gas also becomes diluted and it move. If one state wants to pollute their air than fine, just as long as they don't pollute the air of neighboring states.
    1
  8. "Not all states can afford to fund all these programs on their own" But the federal government can with $20 trillion in debt? You have to understand that government has nothing until it takes from the people as a tax. The federal government is not sitting on revenue to give to the states. It taxes people to get revenue. If we lower federal taxes that will mean more money for the people the have and states can raise taxes. That, mixed in with the fact that you can micromanage at the local level easier, means more revenue overall. "California can afford to do anything it wants, " Debatable, CA has cities that are bankrupt. WV, AL and NE don't. "That is what the Federal government is for: to help support the less powerful states." Not true. Again, the federal government does not have revenue unless it taxes people or states. Same with state and local government. People generate wealth and revenue. "Without the Federal government redistributing wealth from states like Cali" Who is in debt. "most of the South and Midwest would be like third world counties." Again, not true. "You think Nebraska could provide better public service without government grants? " I have been to NE many times, they can.
    1
  9. "What you aren't understanding is that the country's wealth and resources are distributed very unevenly" How so? What makes you think that? " and as a result not all states can afford to maintain a high standard of public service over an extended period." But they can. Prices are different in each state, so are the economies, number of people, etc. You feel that the federal government needs to provide things when in reality the states can do it just fine. " For decades, the Federal government has used it's taxation abilities to help ensure that no state falls too far behind in this regard." No it hasn't. " However, ever since we stopped investing in the infrastructure and social programs " Social programs have been growing for years, and infrastructure is mainly at the state and local level. "we have begun to see the rift between wealthy and poor states grow and grow." Now we haven't.
    1
  10. "Raising taxes" Does not always mean more revenue. For example, what is higher? 50% of 100 or 10% of 1000? "Wall Street speculation" Which is used for scholarships and retirement.
    1
  11. " They could just set up all the polluting factories on their borders, and let the neighboring states deal with the fallout" No true because of the commerce clause. If one state were to pollute another state than the federal government can come in and deal with the situation by fining the state doing the polluting. In fact that is how the country was designed, the federal government managed the states, not individuals or businesses.
    1
  12. Catherine, Oklahoma has experienced earthquakes in the past.
    1
  13. samiamrg7, poverty is subjective due to cost of living being different across the country. Also, blacks make up a large portion of the poor and considering how democrats at the federal level continue to keep them down, I blame poverty on democrats and not the lack of resources by the states. "Or the fact that some states have many people and others have fewer, " Not an issue as states with less resources have less people, like Wyoming and Vermont. "Or the fact that any large city has a large revenue base and large revenue needs while a rural area has a small tax base and smaller revenue needs." And in rural areas you have more people who volunteer, and people do with less there. They know they have limited resources and deal with it. I grew up in a rural area and we were fine. When it snowed a local plowed the road, not some government worker. We had volunteer fire fighters. We had roads with no stop signs. "Or the fact that northern Illinois has more people and more wealth because it is at the locus of major trade routes whereas southern Illinois is poorer because it is not. " That's Illinois' problem. People adjust to the area they live in. In rural areas they know they have limited resources and thus deal with it. There is no need to give them more as they won't do anything with it.
    1
  14. "Instead of dealing with the problem when it arises, it is better to deal with before it becomes a problem. " States can deal with that. The threat of the federal government fining a state is dealing with it before it becomes a problem. Even if the federal EPA were to exist a state could still pollute. So it makes no different. My way is like this, if I were to trespass on my neighbor's property the cops can come and stop me. The threat of that keeps me from doing it. That is how the federal government makes sure the states don't pollute other states. They have the guideline set. You have to commerce clause wrong here. States set their own pollution standard. If Nevada with their mining wants to pollute an isolated lake than that is their business. That water will not flow anywhere, so why should the federal government stop them?
    1
  15. "Increasing taxes generally does mean more revenue. " Not necessarily true. It is more complicated than that. Plus, taxing Wall Street speculation does not work. If it did it would have been used a long time ago. "Do you really think that any Congress would be so foolish as to levy a tax without assessing what it will do?" Yes, like the did with Obamacare.
    1
  16. Andrew Mildenberg, if pollution crosses state lines than the federal government, via the commerce clause, can stop that. "If pollution occurs in Indiana, it will stay in Indiana, and I'm sure those people who are affected locally will totally be cool with it because it's only affecting them" If they vote for it or continue to live there then sure. Look at Centralia, PA. People still there despite it being of fire. "The people saying the EPA should be well funded enough to do the job it was created to do (take care of the environment) or to expect all the states to watch their own pollution when there is no regulators in the state to watch for it or regulations to enforce the laws designed to protect us?" States create their own regulations like they create their own standards when it comes to education. States are free to do that and as a result we see numerous states refusing to teach kids or have high schools or.....wait, every state has K-12 education? It seems like states do the best for their state then.
    1
  17. samiamrg7, democrats have created policies that places hurdles for blacks such as the min. wage. The min. wage increased black teen unemployment which creates more poverty. Also, the welfare state and allowing them to act like victims does not help either. Slavery was over 150 years ago, that is done. There are several blacks that are successful, democrats just create policies making it harder for them which is why poverty is so high with them.
    1
  18. Andrew Mildenberg, you clearly don't understand history. The Northwest Ordinance Act did not establish any federal education program. States still run and their own K-12 education system. If you can't get simple facts right we can't even think about going to opinions.
    1