Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Promise Broken

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:20am
Originally posted by FreeEnterprise FreeEnterprise wrote:

I think what angers so much of the country, is the way obama made himself out to be centrist...

and the media, who didn't do their jobs in asking tough questions, let him... And said "yes, Obama is a centrist, almost reagan like..."


and now he it is obvious how leftist he truly is.



I don't know how you can say that Obama has been anything other than centrist so far. I would very much enjoy hearing details.

If you are basing that claim in part on the rest of your post, then perhaps you misunderstand "centrist".


Quote
Lets look at some facts. Next on the horizon is Cap and Trade for energy. This will decimate your income. (not the rich guys, but the average american, the ones obama promised to "lower" taxes) Through higher fuel and home energy prices, as well as anything produced, and purchased...





I would think you would favor cap and trade. It is a market-based approach. The only two other realistic options are a straight carbon tax, or direct emission limits, neither of which allow the costs to be priced and allocated by the market. (actually a carbon tax could if done properly, which is why it is favored by many economists, but that is perhaps a different discussion)

So, Obama is faced with an environmental issue, and favors the most market-based solution, and you interpret this to mean that he is a leftist?

You may or may not agree with the environmental issue in question (I can take a guess at your position there), but the need to control carbon emissions is no longer a left/right issue anywhere except on Fox News. Conservative leaders around the world agree with the need to control carbon emissions, including many or most of the Republicans in Congress.

More relevantly, my point here is that regardless of what you think of the problem, it is quite clear that Obama strongly favors a market solution.

I don't see how that is "leftist".


(On a side note - linking to opinion pages is not particularly persuasive. Particularly when these opinion pieces are not credited with an author. I have no idea if this is basically a letter to the editor, or Michael Bloomberg writing. Some of the statements in the piece are credible and verifiable, others are conveniently selective. Further research on the subject would benefit you.)

Quote
Now Obama isn't the only one, as under bush (course the liberal majority in congress actually wrote and passed the law..., but I'll blame it on Bush since he signed it).


Now we are going to regulate dust through the EPA... As someone who lives in rural America, and farms, I see the rediculousness of this, but everytime my costs go up, I just increase that cost to you, the consumer...



Your next "evidence" for Obama's leftiness is a rule that, by your own admission, originated under Bush. Excuse me if I do not find that persuasive evidence of Obama's leftist politics.

(Not a statute passed by Congress, by the way, but an EPA-originated rule. 100% executive branch.)

I also enjoy how easily you declare this matter "rediculous." I'm sorry, but looking out the kitchen window and declaring "nah - not too dusty" does not make dust control ridiculous. There is a long history of dust control in this country, for a variety of reasons. Many regions and industries have been subject to dust control rules for decades - this is not a new concept, but an extension of old (bipartisan) policies into new regions and industries.

There does appear to be some room for debate about the necessity of rural Midwest dust control, but I suspect neither you or I are qualified to participate in that debate.


Quote Then you heap on the massive new health care reform...


Now you are getting somewhere. I think you are being a little premature, since Obama has been relatively vague about the details of his health care reform, but it is quite possible that the result could be true socialized medicine, which would certainly qualify as "leftist" - at least in this country.

Quote Or the massive spending bills...


Here you are pushing a bit. The recent Omnibus Spending Bill preceded Obama. It was only finished recently, but was underway well before. It is also not particularly different from similar spending bills under previous administrations - right down to the party split of earmarks.

Similarly, ARRA (the stimulus bill) has the support of many conservative leaders and economists. It generally favors market-based spending, by competitively bidding out projects to the private sector. ARRA does not put just the people in the public employ, but will motivate the private sector.

Again, Obama chooses the market-based approach. A true "socialist" would have simply hired everybody to work for the government.

And TARP II, of course, is more or less the same as TARP I (hopefully with some lessons learned implemented). Again, financial industry support has widespread support among economists and conservative leaders. The more leftist approach would have been outright nationalization (although this also has some support from the right, and the Republicans certainly have not been afraid of nationalization in the past).

Aggressive government action, including large expenditures, to spur economic growth is not a leftist idea.

Quote

Or just look at how much Obama's "new" government has spent since it took over...



$1,000,000,000 per hour. Every hour in the first 50 days.





Mitch McConnell thinks he is Ross Perot, but he is not. Frankly, he is a bit of an embarassment. He has a wonderful ability to present ridiculous "illustrations" with a straight face. Like this one.

Of course, when people like you manage to misinterpret even his silly statements, then I guess he is effective enough.

The Obama administration has not "spent" a billion every hour. What has happened is that Congress/Obama has APPROVED expenditures in a total amount equal to a billion per hour, IF you arbitrarily divide that amount into 50 days. Which is kind of silly, since the money in question is to be spent over the course of several years, not 50 days.

He might as well have declared, ten seconds after ARRA was signed, that Congress was "spending" a trillion dollars a minute. It would make just as much sense.

Is Obama spending money at a furious rate? Absolutely. Does that make the illustration any less goofy? Nope.


Back on point - simply spending lots of money is not a left/right issue. Lots of "rightists" like to spend lots of Federal money. The fighting is mostly about how to spend it, and on what. As discussed above, there is plenty of conservative support for aggressive stimulus action, both now and historically. ARRA itself is not automatically "leftist", and the Omnibus Bill certainly is not.

McConnell's "argument" (and yours) is basically "ZOMG big numbers!" This is not persuasive.


Quote
Or how about limiting the amounts of money you can donate and get tax breaks on... Yeah, thats going to help charities... Gotta close those "loopholes", because we need everyone dependant on government...





Next up is Obama's supposed plan to injure the poor charities.

As pointed out in an earlier post, this is a gross mischaracterization of what is actually happening. What is proposed is a lowering of the already existing limit on total itemized deductions for high earners.

So first problem is that this is not a new thing, but a modification of an old thing.

Second problem is that this is not specific to charitable donations. This deduction phaseout applies to the combined total of most itemized deductions, not just charitable donations. Other itemized deductions that might be covered by this phaseout include deductions for live-in nannies, deductions for yachts or Aspen condos, deductions for a home office in a giant mansion, deductions for unreimbursed business expenses (like first-class airline tickets to Rome every few weeks), and so forth. The list of itemized deductions subject to the phaseout is long, and charitable donations is only one entry.

The third problem, of course, is what the article you link describes: past history shows that the phaseout does not particularly affect charitable donations. Despite what the proletariat thinks, most people are not motivated in their giving by taxes. When Ted Turner wrote a check for $1 Billion, he blew right through every cap there is, and certainly did not get a deduction for most of that. Bill Gates exceeds the cap many times over every year. At a lower level, millions of Americans drop dollars in the collection plate every Sunday, none of which is tax deductible at all.

And, of course, the charitable donation deduction is only available to itemizers, which cuts out millions of Americans who still find a way to give.

Americans are a charitable people, and tax deductions have never been a driving force for that tradition.

You really should read the articles before linking them.

Which brings me to the last problem here: Is it your claim that hating on charities is somehow a "leftist" position? Because that, frankly, is a bit silly.



tl;dr: FE claims Obama is leftist, and backs it up with descriptions of things that either Obama didn't to or aren't leftist. I remain unconvinced.



Edited by Peter Parker - 13 March 2009 at 3:29am

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:58am
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

I believe the argument was based on causing small farms to fail due to ridiculous dust regulations. Are you freaking serious? DUST? I guess the EPA needs to come out and fine my wife, because apparently, she is putting my family and I at risk. I obviously disagree with you on some issues, but if you are sincerely arguing the case for such regulations, I think are off your rocker.

I agree that farms failing to make ends meet is one thing, but forcing them to fail by burdening them with assinine regulations about kicking up some dust is going a bit far.


As Mack interpreted, I am not out to get family farms, but nor do I favor giving them special treatment. That applies to dust regulation as well.

If farm dust is a health hazard, as both the EPA and a Federal court appear to think, then regulation may be appropriate. And if there is to be public health-motivated regulation, then that regulation should apply to family farms just the same as to Simplot. If that drives some small farms under, then so be it. Dust regulation should apply to all or none.

BTW, both you and FE seem very quick to dismiss dust regulation as silly, based on nothing but your gut reaction. I prefer to base my policy opinions on scientific studies. At this point the state of the science is apparently that it is more likely than not that farm dust is a public health hazard. One might question whether "more likely than not" is the correct standard to apply (it certainly seems a low standard to me), but it is clear that the EPA is not basing their rule on a hunch or gut instinct.

And to FE - no, we cannot stop God from causing sandstorms in Arizona. But if you want to do any kind of construction in the AZ desert, you will need to comply with a variety of environmental regulations, including desert tortoise habitat protection, Native American archaelogical site protection, and ... dust control.

Dust control has been reality in much of the country for a long time, and somehow those economies have not all collapsed.

I agree that we should generally avoid unnecessary regulation - absolutely. But I view the public health as something very much worth protecting.

Many of the folk now objecting to this dust control regulation are the current equivalents of the folks who previously objected to particulate emission control for powerplants and factories, objected to mandatory seatbelt installation, objected to OSHA air quality rules, and objected to every other industry regulation motivated by the public health.

Yes, every public health concern should be scrutinized before being regulated, and yes, regulation does impose a cost on the economy. But some things are worth the cost. If, for instance, it could be convincingly shown that this dust regulation would save the lives of ten Midwestern babies every year, would that be sufficient cause for regulation?

Everything we do is a balancing act. We try to protect each other, but without injuring the economy. It is never easy, and we should certainly challenge regulations to make sure they are truly needed, but it is disingenuous and frankly a bit offensive to dismiss efforts to protect the public health as "asinine."


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 7:35am
Originally posted by Article Article wrote:

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council challenged EPA in 2006 over its decision to regulate coarse particulate matter -- or dust -- in rural areas, arguing that the agency had failed to show any negative health effects associated with the dust (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2006).

EPA had considered exempting farming and mining operations, but the agency ultimately decided it could not exclude particular industries.

Farming and agriculture groups said the regulations would hurt their industries, affecting everything from combine dust to feedlot dust and even the dust from gravel roads. But environmentalists argued against the exemption for some industrial sources, saying there was compelling evidence that agricultural dust negatively affected public health and the environment. where?

In its opinion yesterday, the court upheld EPA's rule for farm dust, saying that the industry petitioners "mistakenly equated an absence of certainty about dangerousness with the existence of certainty about safety."

While the judges acknowledged that evidence about the dangers of rural dust is "inconclusive," they said that the agency was not required to wait for conclusive results before regulating a pollutant believed to pose a significant risk to public health.

"All of EPA's focus, all their studies and research was looking at coarse [particulate matter] from combustion sources," said Michael Formica, chief environmental counsel at the National Pork Producers Council. "They haven't proved that there's any health risk; they really don't know what we're emitting."

Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 9:50am
Yes collective farms are the answer, that along with 5 year plans to increase crop production, along with a central collection facility, and then a equal ration distribution to food production. Worked so well in the Soviet Union. Eliminate the small personally owned farms and form large collective farms. The pattern has already been tried, only now Obamacrats will perfect the system. I have faith that this will work as well as it did before.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 11:56am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Yes collective farms are the answer, that along with 5 year plans to increase crop production, along with a central collection facility, and then a equal ration distribution to food production. Worked so well in the Soviet Union. Eliminate the small personally owned farms and form large collective farms. The pattern has already been tried, only now Obamacrats will perfect the system. I have faith that this will work as well as it did before.


What are you talking about?

You people just make things up...entirely.

Que pasa?


Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9820
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 11:57am
He's talking about collective farms.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 11:59am
Yeah and?

Doesn't mean he doesn't just make things up.(rationing food wut?)
Que pasa?


Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:10pm
Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Yeah and?

Doesn't mean he doesn't just make things up.(rationing food wut?)
Comparing collective farming progression towards a communistic system. Not really that hard to follow.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:13pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by jmac3 jmac3 wrote:

Yeah and?

Doesn't mean he doesn't just make things up.(rationing food wut?)
Comparing collective farming progression towards a communistic system. Not really that hard to follow.


I followed it.

Doesn't mean it isn't made up and wrong.
Que pasa?


Back to Top
StormyKnight View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2981
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote StormyKnight Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:17pm
Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

I think Obama is probably one of the few politicians out there who will genuinely listen to the public when he makes a move
Like he listened to the plumber guy and told him in front of cameras how he wants to spread the wealth around.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:21pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Yes collective farms are the answer, that along with 5 year plans to increase crop production, along with a central collection facility, and then a equal ration distribution to food production. Worked so well in the Soviet Union. Eliminate the small personally owned farms and form large collective farms. The pattern has already been tried, only now Obamacrats will perfect the system. I have faith that this will work as well as it did before.


Oh good lord, OS.

I think J.R. Simplot would object to being called a "collective farmer."

We are talking about unrestrained capitalism here, not communism. Your description is off by exactly 180 degrees.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 12:44pm
Peter, you and I know what is going on, people like Jmac3 have a problem with the concept. And if Simplot became the sole distributor of grain and corn in the US, the end result would be? The purpose of the small farmer is to balance and prevent monopolies. And having picked up a bagged grain load at Simplot, you would think you were at a collective farm, no one spoke english, and loaded the truck bag by bag in total silence, a Simplot Gulag.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 1:29pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Originally posted by Article Article wrote:


The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council challenged EPA in 2006 over its decision to regulate coarse particulate matter -- or dust -- in rural areas, arguing that the agency had failed to show any negative health effects associated with the dust (Greenwire[/COLOR">, Dec. 15, 2006).


EPA had considered exempting farming and mining operations, but the agency ultimately decided it could not exclude particular industries.


Farming and agriculture groups said the regulations would hurt their industries, affecting everything from combine dust to feedlot dust and even the dust from gravel roads. But environmentalists argued against the exemption for some industrial sources, saying there was compelling evidence that agricultural dust negatively affected public health and the environment. where?


In its opinion yesterday, the court upheld EPA's rule for farm dust, saying that the industry petitioners "mistakenly equated an absence of certainty about dangerousness with the existence of certainty about safety."


While the judges acknowledged that evidence about the dangers of rural dust is "inconclusive," they said that the agency was not required to wait for conclusive results before regulating a pollutant believed to pose a significant risk to public health.


"All of EPA's focus, all their studies and research was looking at coarse [particulate matter] from combustion sources," said Michael Formica, chief environmental counsel at the National Pork Producers Council. "They haven't proved that there's any health risk; they really don't know what we're emitting."



Check the blue highlighting. Claims made by opposition is different from fact.

Moreover, we have to remember that the NPPC and the AFBF are trade association - aka special interest lobby groups. It is their very raison d'etre to oppose every single rule and restriction applicable to farming. That is what they do. Groups like these objected to pesticide rules and herbicide rules. They lobby hugely in favor of the farm subsidies we all hate. They support protectionist policies. They are not impartial; they are the opposite of impartial.

A quick look through history will show each of these groups opposing a variety of EPA rules and other state and federal laws/regulations. This certainly does not mean that we should ignore their arguments, but it does mean that we should apply scrutiny and skepticism.

Also check some other sources, FE's article:

Originally posted by FE's Article FE's Article wrote:

...the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington ruled Tuesday that the EPA had already provided the evidence necessary to determine farm dust "likely is not safe."


Better yet, of course, let's not filter our information through journalists who are limited to 250 words, or through press releases by trade associations. Let's go straight to the actual opinion of the court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/061410p.pdf (if that link requires a login, I can probably find a different one)

Reading the opinion, we discover all kinds of interesting things that didn't make it into the little article summaries.

For instance:

- This rulemaking process started in 1997. It has been through research periods, public comment periods, and at least one prior lawsuit. This is not some new thing that the EPA suddenly came up with.

- The NPPC and the AFBF are not the only groups involved here. A wide variety of interested groups from different backgrounds offered comments to the EPA and/or amicus briefs to the court. Environmental groups, obviously, and medical/public health groups, and others.

In other words, this is the result of a 10-year public process spanning two administrations, with significant input from a large number of interested parties.

Moreover, we learn that these articles are guilty of selective quoting, which is rather ironic given the sections they are selectively quoting. The first line below is frequently quoted by the NPPC; the rest of the paragraph/section not so much:

(from p38):

Originally posted by DC Court of Appeals DC Court of Appeals wrote:

In assessing the scientific evidence, the petitioners have mistakenly equated an absence of certainty about dangerousness with the existence of certainty about safety. The petitioners selectively quote from the final rule to bolster their argument that nonurban coarse is not dangerous ... but they ignore passages that weaken the force of their contention. For example, the petitioners note that studies of exposure to coarse PM from dust storms do not show significant health effects... But the petitioners ignore the EPA’s qualifier on the dust storm studies: people in such situations may practice avoidance behavior and limit their exposure to the dust...

The petitioners similarly quote the portion of the final rule that discusses the lack of health impacts observed in studies focusing on volcanic ash from Mt. St. Helens... but omit the subsequent discussion of possibilities for toxic contamination in more typical nonurban coarse PM.

By contrast, the EPA has provided evidence that suggests nonurban coarse PM likely is not safe. The EPA points to dosimetric, toxicological, and occupational exposure studies that all indicate danger from nonurban coarse.


(more discussion of studies follows)

Basically - yes, the court acknowledges that the science is not conclusive... BUT the court points out that the EPA has many studies indicating that these particles probably are dangerous, while the opposers can show no science that it is not dangerous. Currently, all the available science points to this being a public health issue.

Should we, as a matter of law, require a higher scientific standard before imposing regulations? Maybe - that is a very complicated subject. But this regulation was under the Clean Air Act, which is the same law (and the same scientific standard) used to regulate everything else in the air, like NOx and SO2, and the same law that has made our air, soil, and water much cleaner than it was.

If we were really serious, of course, we would not stop with the court's opinion - the real beef is in the EPA proceedings and scientific studies. That's all public as well, and most of it is on the EPA's website.



Edited by Peter Parker - 13 March 2009 at 1:32pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 1:36pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Peter, you and I know what is going on, people like Jmac3 have a problem with the concept. And if Simplot became the sole distributor of grain and corn in the US, the end result would be? The purpose of the small farmer is to balance and prevent monopolies. And having picked up a bagged grain load at Simplot, you would think you were at a collective farm, no one spoke english, and loaded the truck bag by bag in total silence, a Simplot Gulag.


Small farmers have no "purpose" beyond trying to make money. Small farms are not necessary to prevent monopolies - and they are actually really bad at preventing monopolies, because they are ... small.

To best prevent monopolies you need several large competitors.

And your argument is that Simplot is a "gulag" or a collective because Simplot, in pure capitalist fashion, sought out the lowest-cost labor, which happens not to speak English.

So basically you are saying that Simplot is so uber-capitalistic that they are actually communist.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 2:18pm
Interesting. I always thought we were a country based on guilty until proved innocent. Wasn't aware that we could ban things because they are THOUGHT to case health hazards. Personally whiny city boys complaining about the smell of pig crap gives me migraines. Perhaps we should ban them.
 
I don't contest that damage is caused by certain pesticides and am all for cleaning things up. But some regulations are simply ridiculous. How are you supposed to drive down a gravel road on a windy day without kicking up dust? Should that really be regulated? Cmon.
 
Originally posted by http://www.agweb.com/Get_Article.aspx?source=RSS&pageid=149413 http://www.agweb.com/Get_Article.aspx?source=RSS&pageid=149413 wrote:

EPA released a final rule on regulating particles in the air under the Clean Air Act in October 2006, which says that states should focus on regulating dust in urban areas instead of rural areas because of a lack of scientific data on health or environmental affects of agriculture dust. However, the EPA stopped short of exempting agriculture dust from regulation. Consequently, NCBA filed an appeal of the rule in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were held on September 15, 2008.
 
Unfortunately, I am sure that this is what they are trying to control:
Which I don't necessarily disagree with. However, a large net is being thrown on the side of caution rather than directly aimed at the offensive issues.
 
Another link I found was:
Yes, it is obviously published by an interested party, but statements regarding ongoing studies with no conclusions yet, points to putting the cart before the horse. It again also states that the burden of proof is being put on the agriculture industry to prove something doesn't exist.  Basically, prove that dust in the air by cattle movement or driving down a dirt road doesn't cause harm. Mmkay.
 
Honestly, it isn't my battle. It actually is one of the first times I have heard about it as I am not directly involved in the farming business. However, I am not in favor of over regulation in already hard hit industries.
 
As for giving small farms a break, again, I will mention that a lot of farmers are being hurt due to the drop in corn prices. They were roped into planting corn with the promises of riches and than when the Ethanol plants crapped out, so did the contracts. I find it interesting that we are willing to bail out banks and individuals that made poor decisions, but God forbid, we give an honest farmer a break who was pushed to support alternative fuel. Bad farmer, Bad!
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 2:57pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Interesting. I always thought we were a country based on guilty until proved innocent. Wasn't aware that we could ban things because they are THOUGHT to case health hazards. Personally whiny city boys complaining about the smell of pig crap gives me migraines. Perhaps we should ban them.


That makes no sense.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is a criminal concept. Nobody is going to prison here. In civil courts, on the other hand, the standard always has been "the preponderance of the evidence" - i.e., 51%.

And you are vastly understanding the science by dismissing the health risks as imaginary. And nobody is talking about "banning" anything.

This paragraph is a complete and utter strawman that bears no relationship to the actual issue.

Quote
I don't contest that damage is caused by certain pesticides and am all for cleaning things up. But some regulations are simply ridiculous. How are you supposed to drive down a gravel road on a windy day without kicking up dust? Should that really be regulated? Cmon.


And "cmon" and "ridiculous" were arguments raised against pesticide control as well. Those arguments were not persuasive then, and they are not persuasive now.

And if it turns out that rural gravel roads are killing babies, then yes we should do something about that. I don't know what the solution is, but it is a problem to be solved. That is what we humans do - we solve problems. We don't ignore them because they are inconvenient.

Quote ... a large net is being thrown on the side of caution rather than directly aimed at the offensive issues.


To some extent that is probably true, but I suspect not as much as you think. The EPA has been researching and regulating particulate emissions for decades. They did not come out immediately and jump all over all particulates. Instead, they have slowly looked at different PM sources one by one, and addressed them separately. These regulations are carefully drafted and reviewed. It is NOT just a general prohibition thrown out there.

Such a characterization is simply false.


Quote
Another link I found was:


Yes, it is obviously published by an interested party, but statements regarding ongoing studies with no conclusions yet, points to putting the cart before the horse. It again also states that the burden of proof is being put on the agriculture industry to prove something doesn't exist.  Basically, prove that dust in the air by cattle movement or driving down a dirt road doesn't cause harm. Mmkay.


And this article illustrates the dangers of getting information from lobbyists. This article directly misstates the process.

The DC Court is an appeals court. The court is not evaluating the merits of the science on a blank slate. The court's mandate here is to make sure that the EPA did not abuse its power. Period. That's it.

There are many ways abuse of discretion can occur, mostly relating to process, but also relating to overstating the underlying research. Opponents attacked on all fronts.

The EPA followed proper procedure here, which includes plenty of opportunity for public comment. All interested parties had a full decade to present research and comment on research presented by others.

The farm lobby did not have to prove a negative. If they could simply show that the pro-regulation science was flawed they would have prevailed.

What happened here was that the EPA spent a decade looking at research, listening to comments from everybody, and evaluating all facts, and then concluded that there was sufficient risk of a public health hazard to merit regulation. This is THE EXACT SAME PROCESS that was followed for pesticide regulation and powerplant emission regulation. The exact same.

This court case was just to make sure that the EPA did it properly. Apparently the court thinks the EPA did it properly.


Quote Honestly, it isn't my battle. It actually is one of the first times I have heard about it as I am not directly involved in the farming business.


Same for me.

Quote However, I am not in favor of over regulation in already hard hit industries.


I also don't favor overregulation, but nor do I favor skipping important regulation just because some businesses will suffer. If we applied that standard, no regulation would ever happen.

Quote As for giving small farms a break, again, I will mention that a lot of farmers are being hurt due to the drop in corn prices. They were roped into planting corn with the promises of riches and than when the Ethanol plants crapped out, so did the contracts. I find it interesting that we are willing to bail out banks and individuals that made poor decisions, but God forbid, we give an honest farmer a break who was pushed to support alternative fuel. Bad farmer, Bad!


I find it equally interesting that you are willing to throw home owners under the bus, but want to help businesses that made poor decisions...

But as I have said many times already, my support for the various bailout packages has nothing to do with helping people that made bad decisions, and everything to do with saving ourselves from getting dragged down with them.


"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:03pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Peter, you and I know what is going on, people like Jmac3 have a problem with the concept. And if Simplot became the sole distributor of grain and corn in the US, the end result would be? The purpose of the small farmer is to balance and prevent monopolies. And having picked up a bagged grain load at Simplot, you would think you were at a collective farm, no one spoke english, and loaded the truck bag by bag in total silence, a Simplot Gulag.


Since when does not speaking english have anything to do with collective farms?  Further, if they were totally silent, how do you know none of them spoke english? 
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:04pm
Googlefu me any direct link to a study that shows direct evidence of dangerous dust originating from farming activity. Specifically farming activity.
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3147
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:15pm
Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Googlefu me any direct link to a study that shows direct evidence of dangerous dust originating from farming activity. Specifically farming activity.


I dont need to googlefu anything.  every year i am damn near completely useless for a couple weeks during harvest because my eyes are itchy and watery, some days i can barely open them.  My sinuses go on a rampage making it difficult to breathe. i wake up most mornings in a pool of snot.  I am forced to stay inside, mostly in my own room with my HEPA fan blowing in my face to try to get a little bit of a break. 
Back to Top
oldpbnoob View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not old, Not noob. May be Dave's grandma

Joined: 04 February 2008
Location: Yankee Stadium
Status: Offline
Points: 5676
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldpbnoob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2009 at 3:32pm
Originally posted by Eville Eville wrote:

Originally posted by oldpbnoob oldpbnoob wrote:

Googlefu me any direct link to a study that shows direct evidence of dangerous dust originating from farming activity. Specifically farming activity.


I dont need to googlefu anything.  every year i am damn near completely useless for a couple weeks during harvest because my eyes are itchy and watery, some days i can barely open them.  My sinuses go on a rampage making it difficult to breathe. i wake up most mornings in a pool of snot.  I am forced to stay inside, mostly in my own room with my HEPA fan blowing in my face to try to get a little bit of a break. 
 
I have the same thing in Spring as well. It's called allergies. Even when I lived in Florida, with no farms anywhere around me, I had the same problem.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.202 seconds.