Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

THE FEDERAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT now consumes 31 % of the economy...COMSUMES>>>>

+4
knothead
Markle
othershoe1030
TEOTWAWKI
8 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/the-federal-government-now-consumes-31-percent-of-the-us-economy/
JUST !
U.S. regulatory costs alone are bigger in size than the economies of Australia and Canada. Regulatory costs would be the 10th largest economy in the world, according to CEI, slightly larger than the economy of India.

Guest


Guest

Designed to fail... while the useful idiots cheer their own demise.

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/the-federal-government-now-consumes-31-percent-of-the-us-economy/
JUST !
U.S. regulatory costs alone are bigger in size than the economies of Australia and Canada. Regulatory costs would be the 10th largest economy in the world, according to CEI, slightly larger than the economy of India.


“Federal agencies crank out thousands of new regulations every year, but we have little information on the cost or effectiveness of most of them,” said Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., CEI’s vice president for policy. “There is little transparency and no reliable source of information on exactly what benefits rules are supposed to be generating or if they are serving their intended purpose.”

Obviously the solution is more transparency, more government employees watching other bureaucrats, expanding the size of the Federal Government. Or else we could get rid of some of these regulations and let the market do its work, lol. I'd rather have the regulations and the clean air and water that goes with them than burning rivers and air that makes your eyes water and children cough. It is a trade off. Look at the problems China is having with their non regulated air pollution. It is a mess. We don't need that.

Guest


Guest

othershoe1030 wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/the-federal-government-now-consumes-31-percent-of-the-us-economy/
JUST !
U.S. regulatory costs alone are bigger in size than the economies of Australia and Canada. Regulatory costs would be the 10th largest economy in the world, according to CEI, slightly larger than the economy of India.


“Federal agencies crank out thousands of new regulations every year, but we have little information on the cost or effectiveness of most of them,” said Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., CEI’s vice president for policy. “There is little transparency and no reliable source of information on exactly what benefits rules are supposed to be generating or if they are serving their intended purpose.”

Obviously the solution is more transparency, more government employees watching other bureaucrats, expanding the size of the Federal Government. Or else we could get rid of some of these regulations and let the market do its work, lol. I'd rather have the regulations and the clean air and water that goes with them than burning rivers and air that makes your eyes water and children cough. It is a trade off. Look at the problems China is having with their non regulated air pollution. It is a mess. We don't need that.

Couldn't you agree that there are way too many ridiculous regulations? I mean really, don't you think they sit up there day after day trying to think of another regulation for every tiny little thing to a point where it becomes impossible to even regulate appropriately.


Markle

Markle

othershoe1030 wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/the-federal-government-now-consumes-31-percent-of-the-us-economy/
JUST !
U.S. regulatory costs alone are bigger in size than the economies of Australia and Canada. Regulatory costs would be the 10th largest economy in the world, according to CEI, slightly larger than the economy of India.


“Federal agencies crank out thousands of new regulations every year, but we have little information on the cost or effectiveness of most of them,” said Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., CEI’s vice president for policy. “There is little transparency and no reliable source of information on exactly what benefits rules are supposed to be generating or if they are serving their intended purpose.”

Obviously the solution is more transparency, more government employees watching other bureaucrats, expanding the size of the Federal Government. Or else we could get rid of some of these regulations and let the market do its work, lol. I'd rather have the regulations and the clean air and water that goes with them than burning rivers and air that makes your eyes water and children cough. It is a trade off. Look at the problems China is having with their non regulated air pollution. It is a mess. We don't need that.

We have millions of regulations which accomplish nothing but added bureaucracies and cost.

Just one is the example of the Delta Smelt preventing the irrigation and farming of one of our most valuable agricultural areas.

It's not just today, going back decades we eliminated DDT which has cost millions upon millions of lives. For no good reason.

knothead

knothead

Obviously the solution is more transparency, more government employees watching other bureaucrats, expanding the size of the Federal Government. Or else we could get rid of some of these regulations and let the market do its work, lol. I'd rather have the regulations and the clean air and water that goes with them than burning rivers and air that makes your eyes water and children cough. It is a trade off. Look at the problems China is having with their non regulated air pollution. It is a mess. We don't need that.


I agree OS that if we are to have clean air, water, safe drugs, etc., etc., then we necessarily will grow the size of the government which in itself is not necessarily good. The point is . . . what is the alternative? We know through experience that left to their devices people, businesses, etc. will not comply voluntarily and/or responsibly . . . it really is that simple. Chrissy pointed out rightfully that there seems to be completely stupid regulations making the case for 'de-regulation' but when one looks with scrutiny on practically any regulated area they will realize the need for that regulation. I don't trust people to protect our planet . .

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

"...going back decades we eliminated DDT which has cost millions upon millions of lives. For no good reason..."

Um, DDT was banned because it is a persistent chemical that builds in the food chain, amongst other things. I suppose you think USEPA should lift the bans on DDT, PCBs, and even asbestos...and lets not forget lead-based paints and tetraethy lead.

I guess Markle just doesn't mind eating DDT-laced sardines......

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

What y'all miss is the fact that there are not layers of regulations and laws and bureaucracy and voluminous tax codes to ensure the fair treatment of individuals... it's the opposite. Common sense and fair treatment are easily known by all.

There are nearly a million civilian contractors working for the pentagon alone... the fed govt is a monstrosity.

A common sense federal govt would be a fraction of it's size... let the states fund whatever size bureaucracy it wants.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:"...going back decades we eliminated DDT which has cost millions upon millions of lives. For no good reason..."

Um, DDT was banned because it is a persistent chemical that builds in the food chain, amongst other things. I suppose you think USEPA should lift the bans on DDT, PCBs, and even asbestos...and lets not forget lead-based paints and tetraethy lead.

I guess Markle just doesn't mind eating DDT-laced sardines......

That shows how little you know about DDT. I bet you still believe Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring.

A New Home for DDT

By DONALD ROBERTS

Published: August 20, 2007

Bethesda, Md.

DDT, the miracle insecticide turned environmental bogeyman, is once again playing an important role in public health. In the malaria-plagued regions of Africa, where mosquitoes are becoming resistant to other chemicals, DDT is now being used as an indoor repellent. Research that I and my colleagues recently conducted shows that DDT is the most effective pesticide for spraying on walls, because it can keep mosquitoes from even entering the room.

The news may seem surprising, as some mosquitoes worldwide are already resistant to DDT. But we’ve learned that even mosquitoes that have developed an immunity to being directly poisoned by DDT are still repelled by it.

Malaria accounts for nearly 90 percent of all deaths from vector-borne disease globally. And it is surging in Africa, surpassing AIDS as the biggest killer of African children under age 5.

From the 1940s onward, DDT was used to kill agricultural pests and disease-carrying insects because it was cheap and lasted longer than other insecticides. DDT helped much of the developed world, including the United States and Europe, eradicate malaria. Then in the 1970s, after the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” which raised concern over DDT’s effects on wildlife and people, the chemical was banned in many countries. Birds, especially, were said to be vulnerable, and the chemical was blamed for reduced populations of bald eagles, falcons and pelicans. Scientific scrutiny has failed to find conclusive evidence that DDT causes cancer or other health problems in humans.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/opinion/20roberts.html?_r=4&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&

knothead

knothead

let the states fund whatever size bureaucracy it wants.

I disagree and feel that is nonsense pkr . . . it's not a criticism of your perspective as it highlights the utter stupidity of the literal interpretation of 'states rights'.  Ask your self this, left to the political realm in which we live can you see states like Texas, MS, NC, MS and other like-minded states actually regulating these issues pertaining to the well being of all our citizens?
I believe that's a good example of why we cannot allow states into the realms of these decisions affecting all Americans and in some cases the entire planet .

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:let the states fund whatever size bureaucracy it wants.

I disagree and feel that is nonsense pkr . . . it's not a criticism of your perspective as it highlights the utter stupidity of the literal interpretation of 'states rights'.  Ask your self this, left to the political realm in which we live can you see states like Texas, MS, NC, MS and other like-minded states actually regulating these issues pertaining to the well being of all our citizens?
I believe that's a good example of why we cannot allow states into the realms of these decisions affecting all Americans and in some cases the entire planet .

Common sense regulations/laws/codes don't require tens of thousands of pages and millions of bureaucrats.

If there an issue between states... or a citizens redress that isn't satisfied inside a state... then that's the fed responsibility.

It was never ethical or later lawful to cause harm to others... that includes environmentally. States are capable administrators.

knothead

knothead

States are capable administrators.


That has not proven to be the case historically . . . state administrators dance to the tune of the dogma not facts . . .

stormwatch89

stormwatch89

THE FEDERAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT now consumes 31 % of the economy...COMSUMES>>>> 227486

othershoe1030

othershoe1030

knothead wrote:Obviously the solution is more transparency, more government employees watching other bureaucrats, expanding the size of the Federal Government. Or else we could get rid of some of these regulations and let the market do its work, lol. I'd rather have the regulations and the clean air and water that goes with them than burning rivers and air that makes your eyes water and children cough. It is a trade off. Look at the problems China is having with their non regulated air pollution. It is a mess. We don't need that.


I agree OS that if we are to have clean air, water, safe drugs, etc., etc., then we necessarily will grow the size of the government which in itself is not necessarily good.  The point is . . . what is the alternative? We know through experience that left to their devices people, businesses, etc. will not comply voluntarily and/or responsibly . . . it really is that simple.  Chrissy pointed out rightfully that there seems to be completely stupid regulations making the case for 'de-regulation' but when one looks with scrutiny on practically any regulated area they will realize the need for that regulation.  I don't trust people to protect our planet . .  

Well, exactly, what is the alternative? I was poking fun at the government haters saying basically if you want regulations to work you have to have enough inspectors to ensure regulations are being followed. One of the favorite tactics of the GOP is to pass some regulation and then kill it in its crib by not funding or underfunding it. Then they turn around and claim that regulations don't work!

I agree, history shows we definitely cannot trust people or industries or corporations to do the common sense thing to protect our planet.


THE FEDERAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT now consumes 31 % of the economy...COMSUMES>>>> Smog

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
othershoe1030 wrote:
TEOTWAWKI wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/29/the-federal-government-now-consumes-31-percent-of-the-us-economy/
JUST !
U.S. regulatory costs alone are bigger in size than the economies of Australia and Canada. Regulatory costs would be the 10th largest economy in the world, according to CEI, slightly larger than the economy of India.


“Federal agencies crank out thousands of new regulations every year, but we have little information on the cost or effectiveness of most of them,” said Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr., CEI’s vice president for policy. “There is little transparency and no reliable source of information on exactly what benefits rules are supposed to be generating or if they are serving their intended purpose.”

Obviously the solution is more transparency, more government employees watching other bureaucrats, expanding the size of the Federal Government. Or else we could get rid of some of these regulations and let the market do its work, lol. I'd rather have the regulations and the clean air and water that goes with them than burning rivers and air that makes your eyes water and children cough. It is a trade off. Look at the problems China is having with their non regulated air pollution. It is a mess. We don't need that.

We have millions of regulations which accomplish nothing but added bureaucracies and cost.

Just one is the example of the Delta Smelt preventing the irrigation and farming of one of our most valuable agricultural areas.

It's not just today, going back decades we eliminated DDT which has cost millions upon millions of lives.  For no good reason.


Markle: You're a terrible liar. DDT was banned because of human health issues and because of the damage it was doing to birds and other wildlife.

Millions of Americans demonstrated allergies and other immune system problems that were directly traced to DDT in their systems.

That's plenty good reason for banning any chemical for agricultural use!!

Screw Amerika Inc.!!

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

If anyone doesn't think DDT was harmful to wildlife, look up what it did to Pelicans and Bald Eagles.

Look up also what the Shell No Pest Strip (DDT based) did to thousands of Americans who were stupid enough to trust a major oil/chemical corporation.

I know, because I was one of the victims in the early 60s.

Of course too many regulations hinder business. But only huge corporations produce pesticides. No doubt the regulatory arms need to concentrate on the real blood suckers. Screw Amerika Inc.!!

18THE FEDERAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT now consumes 31 % of the economy...COMSUMES>>>> Empty Want the truth on DDT? 5/6/2014, 2:45 pm

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Go here:

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html

stormwatch89

stormwatch89

Let's take it local. Good ole MMS.

How many of us realized they were nothing but a pit for favors, bribes and permits?

BP had all the permits.

Those who trust gov't regulators are those who are beyond blind.

Would you have rather asked BP for compensation or MMS?

PS: Corps produce and are held to scrutiny or they are sued.
Govt bleeds from the producers and answers no questions.

But, hey: You knew that?

Libs seem to be inclined towards suit............who would you rather?

Liability vs. None

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:Go here:

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html

As you well know, people have eaten DDT, on a daily basis with no effects.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Go here:

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html

As you well know, people have eaten DDT, on a daily basis with no effects.



Prove it. With real science, not the kind of product propaganda you normally quote.

And if you're right, why doesn't Wikipedia or any of the major links on DDT agree with you?

Hell, confess Herr Markle, if strychnine was banned you'ed be out pimping for it!

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:
Wordslinger wrote:Go here:

http://people.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html

As you well know, people have eaten DDT, on a daily basis with no effects.


I do remember in the early 1970s seeing a news clip about some very stupid people intentionally ingesting DDT capsules in an attempt to prove it was a harmless substance. Would you be willing to try this to prove your point?

Since you have no background in human-health risk assessment, I think you should refrain from making such statements.

There were a lot of reasons for banning DDT. Some of the main ones were because it bioaccumulates throughout the food chain and it was proven to have deleterious affects on several bird species.  I know, your ideology prevents you from caring about the environment at all......

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:If anyone doesn't think DDT was harmful to wildlife, look up what it did to Pelicans and Bald Eagles.

Look up also what the Shell No Pest Strip (DDT based) did to thousands of Americans who were stupid enough to trust a major oil/chemical corporation.

I know, because I was one of the victims in the early 60s.

Of course too many regulations hinder business.  But only huge corporations produce pesticides. No doubt the regulatory arms need to concentrate on the real blood suckers.  Screw Amerika Inc.!!

What did you do?  Smoke it?

DDT is safe: just ask the professor who ate it for 40 years
Daily Telegraph ^  | originally: 07/19/2001 | Terence Kealey

Posted on ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2002‎ ‎7‎:‎09‎:‎24‎ ‎AM by backhoe


Culture/Society Editorial Editorial
Source: The Telegraph (U.K.)
Published: 07/19/2001 Author: Terence Kealey
Posted on 07/18/2001 16:55:32 PDT by Pokey78


THE World Health Organisation, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the UN environmental programme and its development programme, USAID, and almost all the other international representatives of the great and the good now campaign against DDT.

But, perversely, the Third World still uses it. To those who believe that America under George W Bush and his gas-guzzling, permafrost-drilling accomplices is the source of all global pollution, this Third World defection is disappointing. Where are the virtuous blacks when we need them?

DDT was introduced as an insecticide during the 1940s. In Churchill's words: "The excellent DDT powder has been found to yield astonishing results against insects of all kinds, from lice to mosquitoes."

And astonishing they were. DDT was particularly effective against the anopheles mosquito, which is the carrier of malaria, and people once hoped that DDT would eradicate malaria worldwide. Consider Sri Lanka. In 1946, it had three million cases, but the introduction of DDT reduced the numbers, by 1964, to only 29. In India, the numbers of malaria cases fell from 75 million to around 50,000.

But, in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, the book that launched the environmental movement. In that book, Carson showed how DDT was imperilling wildlife, particularly predators at the top of the food chain that accumulated the chemical in their fat and in their thinning egg shells.

Within a decade, the developed countries had banned DDT, as did some developing countries, to the detriment of their health. In Sri Lanka, cases of malaria soon rose to 500,000. Worldwide, malaria has returned with a vengeance, accounting annually for 300 million cases and, sadly, one million deaths, mainly of children.

As the Third World now knows, there is no ready substitute for DDT. The spraying of houses with DDT prevents malaria because most people are infected after dusk as they sleep indoors. DDT permeates the walls of buildings, and a single spray will provide indoor protection for months.

Other chemicals are available, but they are generally less effective, shorter-acting and - most importantly for the Third World - more expensive. And DDT is extraordinarily safe for humans. Prof Kenneth Mellanby lectured on it for more than 40 years, and during each lecture he would eat a pinch.

Nor need DDT imperil wildlife. The destruction that Carson described was caused by the agricultural use of DDT as a mass insecticide in vast quantities on crops. But the discriminating application of DDT indoors involves only a tiny, contained, environmentally tolerable, reversible fraction of the dose. That is why some international health (as opposed to environmental) agencies, including Unicef, still support the judicious use of DTT. Even the WHO is now softening its stance.

Malaria was once endemic in Britain. Cromwell died of it and both Pepys and Shakespeare described it. Until the 1930s, it was still active in Essex. But we are lucky in our frosty climate, which kills anopheles, and we have eradicated the disease. Yet Greenpeace and other environmental agencies resist the appropriate use of DDT in the tropics.

Politics has long bedevilled malaria. Its first effective cure was quinine, which was discovered by Jesuit missionaries in South America during the 1630s, but for decades Protestants preferred to die rather than swallow "Jesuit's Powder". Today, Third World health is endangered by comfortable Western environmentalists, some of whom, discreetly, view black natives as threats to the local wildlife.

Supporting those black natives, however, are two researchers, Richard Tren and Roger Bate, whose Malaria and the DDT Story, recently published by the Institute for Economic Affairs in London, shows how to foster both a healthier and an environmentally friendlier Third World. Greenpeace, in its self-assurance, embodies a contemporary cultural imperialism as offensive as any Jesuit's.

•The author is the vice-chancellor of Buckingham University

2seaoat



Eating DDT, eliminating all regulation, and creating a parody when reality is something quite different. First, there is 100% agreement that government at the federal level must be reduced. That is being done as we speak, and it must be a continual process of evaluation and reduction. As the Supreme Court a week ago affirmed extraordinary powers in the EPA to regulate coal fired power plants, and as solutions to the dangerous pollution pouring out of those plants, I guess I could argue one could breath right out of the smoke stack, and another could argue how utterly useless the EPA is, but common sense will prevail. We will make reductions. We will stop harm being done to our citizens, and government will continue to operate in this great country by the will of the people. It is pretty simple when special interests are not trying to distort reality with simplistic propaganda which regularly finds willing takers on this forum.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

I think Markle should ingest some DDT just to prove his point. After all, if what he presents is so factual, why should it matter?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum