Wow

[Nebe]

Shameless!

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/hous..._own_research/

[PaulS]

one of reasons I struggle to find Repub. candidates to vote for.

[Nebe]

But God is on their side! And they care about the fetus! So this stuff doesn't matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

To see the party that started the EPA do this and to try to undermine it as much as possible is sad.

[JohnR]

I have not read the article yet but I generally do not rely on Salon for an unbiased opinion - on anything.

Having said that, if we had a fisheries council made up of just scientists we would have a fisheries council that does not have the eyes and ears of anglers. Would you want that? I didn't think so.

There is a balance that should have all the stakeholders on them, no?

[Jackbass]

I am not defending the bill or promoting it. Who knows what was really in it.

I do know this scientific theory is just that. Theory. Fact is fact. Scientists can hypothesize theorize and model 1000 ways to Sunday and alter a single variable to create an expected outcome. While I do beleive our impact on this planet is negative at times. I beleive most who propose plans on repair are pretty much guessing. If we as a nation are to make a true global impact it will not be accomplished with appointed experts theorizing on solutions. We have to first become self sufficient so we can in turn impose will upon others to clean up their acts. For every hybrid energy saving method we impose Other global economies, that we support lock stock and barrel, will trash our progress through their actions.

People can preach about one faction or another but bottom line is at the end of the day if we buy goods and use services produced by these economies that trash the planet we are essentially accomplishing d;(k.

Salon can print publish all the hate articles they want about the GOP. They will use catchy language destined to incite their followers. All it does is further divide our country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Shameless!

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/hous..._own_research/

That's an old article (Nov. 19, 2014). The senate did not pass the bill . . . so you can loosen your bunched up panties. Nor was the bill as portrayed by Salon--whoda thunk? It did attempt to "democratize" and make more "transparent" the actions of the SAB.

As it stands, the President nominates the EPA administrator who is then confirmed by the Senate. The administrator then appoints the members of the SAB. The process obviously creates a politically influenced chain of appointments which can in turn result in politically influenced regulations . . . whoda thunk? We seem to revere regulatory agencies with fine sounding names such as The Environmental Protection Agency. And we seem to believe that without them we could not have good stuff such as clean air.

Actually, we could have all that the EPA supposedly does for us WITHOUT the EPA. All that would be necessary is for the federal Congress itself to do what it appoints the EPA to do. And, even more importantly, for the state legislatures to do, or be allowed to do, what is necessary for the environment in their domains. But the members of the federal Congress would then be held personally responsible for their decisions, and would risk the wrath of voters for unpopular decisions, and the state legislators would be beholden only to their own constituents for their own territory and would not be forced to comply with majority demands from other states which could negatively impact them. That's too old and free a concept to suit our modern times of forcing a one size fits all regulatory scheme, and would allow the states too much power . . . or what was once called "sovereignty."

I know that it is now considered of little consequence that the Constitution does not allow the congress to delegate its legislative power to anyone or anything else. But that was intended to be so for very substantial reasons. Most importantly, to place the power more directly in the hands of the people rather than in unelected and, for all intents and purposes, unaccountable bureaucratic agencies.

I know that when such agencies create regulations that, rightly or wrongly, appeal to you, that's all well and good. Who cares about Constitution, rule of law, when you get what you think you want. The problem, as demonstrated by your disgust of what you are made to think is a "shameless" shaping of an agency, is that such political tinkering might create an agency which won't allow the people (or you) to get what they think they want in the future. It's that age-old problem of unintended consequences.

And it is that very problem, among others, which inspired the structure of the Constitution. If the people vote for bad legislation, for laws which confound and are destructive to what they intend or want, it is their fault either directly or for choosing unfaithful representatives.

But with our Constitution busting administrative state, the fourth branch of government run by hundreds of unelected regulatory agencies, the people have little to say about it . . . and must suffer the consequences of a fourth party decision.

The real problem is not the tinkering with regulatory agencies, but that they exist.

[Nebe]

You think we should have no regulating agencies?!?! BwaaaaAhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You think we should have no regulating agencies?!?! BwaaaaAhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, does "BwaaaaAhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!" summarize your understanding of federal regulatory agencies?

Congress IS a regulatory agency! Regulations are forms of law. In our once Constitutional system of government, the people had, and WERE MEANT to have a say in the laws which they would have to obey. They elected representatives who would pass the laws they wanted passed. It was meant that the representatives they ELECTED would create law--it was not intended, by our once constitutional system of government that law would be created by UNELECTED bureaucrats, so-called "experts," to decide, without the people's consent, the laws that the people would have to obey.

Little by little, by deception and so-called crises, our so-called representatives created, first a couple, then a few, then more and more, and eventually hundreds of agencies which were unlawfully (unconstitutionally) given executive, legislative, and judicial powers--little fiefdoms not accountable to the people--to regulate and tax our behavior in accordance to the now 80,000 pages of regulations they pump out every year ON TOP Of the multi-thousands of pages already on record. Do you read all the new regulations that are created every year? Are you aware of every detail which may affect you, or will you only know about them if you inadvertently break a rule, are caught, and are fined?

And the once revered concept of Separation of Powers is totally demolished in this system of agencies which combine in each regulatory agency those powers which were intended to be separated into our different branches of government--that trio, legislative, executive, and judicial. That is, by definition, a governmental form of tyranny.

It may be debatable if some regulatory agencies are necessary, or even good. But if they are, they shouldn't have the plenary power they now have. And the sheer mass of regulations vomited out by federal agencies should not happen. Many of the regulations do more harm than good. Many are ridiculous. Many, if not most, are politically inspired, agenda driven. And most of them are not government by the people.

And the federal government's myriad of agencies which increasingly affect every aspect of our lives is not only tyrannical because they are unelected and cancel separation of powers, but even more so because the scope of their intrusion breaches the delineation outlined by the Constitution's list of enumerated powers given to the Federal Government. The Federal Government and its "agencies" assume, in all matters, superiority over state and local governments, and even over the people, in deciding what needs to be done and how. Never mind that the Federal Government and its agencies are comprised of "people" such as we and no more so than our local governments. And that state and local governments have "experts," and there are more "experts" among us as individuals at large then there are in the Federal Government and its agencies.

Nor are the politicians and their bureaucrats more honest, capable, and agenda free than state and local governments, nor more so than We the People.

If we cannot avoid stupidity and corruption in politics and "regulation," better that they should be dispersed into the numerous state and local governments and all of their diverse citizens than that they should be empowered in a central government which dictates to all and by such empowerment the ability to cause more widespread, universal harm and destruction.

Congress is a regulatory agency, and as such should burden itself with passing federal regulations rather than ceding that power and responsibility to unelected agencies.

State and local governments are regulatory agencies. They should be allowed to regulate that which the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to regulate.

And We the People, as groups, factions, and individuals, are regulatory agencies of the first order. We should be allowed to self regulate the vast residuum of rights and behaviors that the Constitution does not enumerate as federal powers to do so.

One of the reasons for Separation from England, for the Declaration of Independence, and for the Constitution . . . for the founding of this nation . . . is listed as a complaint against the King: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." That condition has resurfaced and exponentially grown by the creation of our hundreds of federal regulatory agencies.


Of course, if "BwaaaaAhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is the extent of your knowledge regarding regulatory agencies . . . well, . . . they say ignorance is bliss.

[Nebe]

lets see. Off the top of my head, the economic collapse that happened here in 2008 was a result of loosening of banking regulations.
The fact that we are not choking on smog are a result of government regulations.
The fact that we still have fish to catch are a result of government regulations.
But I'm the dumb ass. Look in the mirror.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Enjoying clean drinking water?
Holy mackerel ! Hurray for government regulations!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

lets see. Off the top of my head, the economic collapse that happened here in 2008 was a result of loosening of banking regulations.
The fact that we are not choking on smog are a result of government regulations.
The fact that we still have fish to catch are a result of government regulations.
But I'm the dumb ass. Look in the mirror.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The collapse of 2008 was a result of a collapse in regulations, governmental tampering with the housing marketplace, and lobbyist putting was of money in to congress critter's pockets. A confluence of many factors across both parties.

The fact that we are not choking on smog are a result of government regulations. - And relatively clean water.


The fact that we still have fish to catch are a result of government regulations. But the fact we have barely enough fish to catch is a result of special interest groups pressuring elected reps


Problem - like most things - there is a balance. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong, and sometimes (often) they are bought and paid for by others and the result is paid for in advance.

[Nebe]

True. But to say that we would be better off with zero regulations is insane
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

lets see. Off the top of my head, the economic collapse that happened here in 2008 was a result of loosening of banking regulations.

Depends on which biased opinion you choose to believe. There is the opinion that the collapse was due to government loosening of banking standards for mortgage loans. And that was facilitated by government regulatory agencies such as Fanny Mae. As I have, apparently without avail, tried to get you to understand, just because an agency has a good sounding name and is created with seemingly noble goals, doesn't mean it will always, or ever, perform that way. When the agency is given too much power, it may well, and most likely eventually will, dictate things which are neither noble nor beneficial. Be careful about what you ask for, you may get what you don't want.

The fact that we are not choking on smog are a result of government regulations.

Apparently, you believe that people and local governments are too ignorant to realize when they are choking on smog and too stupid to create local or state regulations to prevent the choking. Apparently, you believe only the EPA can fix such things. Never mind that it is run by people with the same imperfections as the people in the rest of society. Never mind that power and rights are shifted from the people and their local and state regulators to a centralized federal agency with dictatorial power. And that the more such agencies are created, the more power and rights are transferred from the people and their local and state governments to the central government. It seems that you don't see any danger to your freedoms in such an arrangement. Perhaps you prefer benevolent dictatorship to constitutional liberty.

The fact that we still have fish to catch are a result of government regulations.

States can, and do, regulate fishing. In a commercial sense, federal regulation of migratory fish is within its bounds. But its regulatory power doesn't need to rest in a dictatorial agency. Federal regulatory agencies, as were the first few to be created, can be advisors and compilers of data for Congress which should create laws directly, on the advice, if necessary, of "experts," agency or otherwise. Now, of course, they are no longer merely advisors. They are de facto legislators--with the power to execute and judge their own regulations.

If your talking about sports fishing, all manner of self regulatory methods, as in other sports, can be applied. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if the fish were disappearing due to sport fishing the fisherfolks would get together and figure out how to fix that. Even with local rules and regulations which can be enforced by local government. Or, maybe their too stupid.

But I'm the dumb ass. Look in the mirror.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Neither you nor I are dumb asses. We're having a conversation about federal regulatory agencies. A basic understanding of how they function, how they fit into the constitutional structure, and how that structure is endangered along with your guarantees of freedom if the agencies are beyond the scope and limitations of the Constitution.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

True. But to say that we would be better off with zero regulations is insane
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who said that? And why must so many regulations which should be handled at a state level be done by nearly all-powerful federal regulators? There are, absolutely, some regulations which are within the purview of the federal government. But even in the creation of those, the powers of Congress should not be delegated, in dereliction of its own duty, to hundreds of dictatorial regulatory agencies who pump out thousands of regulations every year.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The real problem is not the tinkering with regulatory agencies, but that they exist.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The real problem is not the tinkering with regulatory agencies, but that they exist.

Originally Posted by Nebe

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How does my quote say that there should be zero regulations? Congress regulates. It doesn't need hundreds of regulatory agencies with plenary power to do what is its sole duty to do. And if it stayed within its constitutional boundaries, it would not be necessary to create thousands of regulations every year. And it could still appoint agencies to advise it and compile necessary data for it in order to more correctly legislate.

We seem to be in a parallel universe of discussion. I think I know where you're coming from and why. But you don't seem to get the gist of what I'm saying. I am not disagreeing with you about the need for regulations. It is the who, how, and why of regulation in which we don't make a connection.

[Nebe]

How can congress regulate so much? Sub agencies are critical for making educated decisions. Bmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

How can congress regulate so much? Sub agencies are critical for making educated decisions. Bmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Simple answer is that, constitutionally, the Federal Congress is not supposed to regulate so much. A great deal of regulation should reside in the states and localities. That would go a long way to restoring a constitutional foundation to the regulatory process.

And sub agencies can be used for advice and suggestions without unconstitutionally giving them the power to actually regulate.

Your question is good. It goes to the heart of the matter. It is a sub question to the overriding critical question. Should we have as government an administrative state, or should we have the constitutional republic on the model created by our Founders? That is what I meant by my comment that the problem with federal regulatory agencies is that they exist. I meant as they exist in their present form. Obviously, regulation is what government is about. No way would I say there should be zero regulation. That would be saying there should be no government. But the question at this time is do we want government by consent of the governed, or do we want the governed to act by consent of the government.

That is the simple answer and fundamental question. For a really good exposition of that answer and that question, please read the following link. Seriously, please, please read it. It is lengthy and will take a bit of time to do so. But will be well worth the effort if you want, and in my opinion we should want, to have a more in depth but still concise and readable explanation of the problem with federal regulatory agencies as they currently exist. You may even like that the essay does not call for the elimination of them, but for necessary reform if we wish to restore constitutional government and its guaranties of individual liberty--in a sensible rather than unbridled way:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...nal-government

[detbuch]

Here's a brief article which gives a despotic example of stealth, by unelected federal regulators, of peoples' freedom to self determine--and the SHAMELESS use of race as a wedge to impose social engineering--and the SHAMELESS stacking of HUD by Obama with progressive Brookings Institution bureaucrats--and the SHAMELESS complicity of mainstream media in not focusing attention, until it's too late, on the administration's project of remaking suburban communities by class integration:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...-stanley-kurtz

Multiply this example by thousands of federal regulatory agency regulations and you might get a perspective on the problem of federal regulatory agencies.