Way to move the goal posts, hotshot. You asked for names of people complaining about reasonable environmental and safety regulations. John Boehner, being against any and all new regulations whatsoever, including any reasonable regulations arising out of the financial industry collapse or the BP oil spill, clearly qualifies.
Fundamental reason Govt needs to regulate corporations.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Way to move the goal posts, hotshot. You asked for names of people complaining about reasonable environmental and safety regulations. John Boehner, being against any and all new regulations whatsoever, including any reasonable regulations arising out of the financial industry collapse or the BP oil spill, clearly qualifies.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I can't name specific people but I can name some specific organizations. BP, Exxon, Chevron and virtually all the major oil companies have opposed common sense and reasonable environmental and safety regulations due to the potential impact on their bottom line and they have a looooong history of doing so. Some other political organizations who oppose reasonable environmental and safety regulations are "The Heritage Foundation", The Competative Enterprise Institute, The National Center for Public Policy Research, The Cato Institute." for example all opposed the development and implementation of both RCRA and CERCLA (which regulated hazardous waste disposal standards and environmental clean up) by EPA and EPCRA Standards (which regulates companies obligation to communicate the hazardous materials they use, store or produce to the communities they impact and their employees) by OSHA.
There is a long history of corporations and conservative organizations opposing almost all reasonable environmental and safety regulations that have ever been proposed and/or adopted and implemented.
Move the posts? Somebody claimed that people were against regulation. I asked whom, you gave me the name of one dude that proposed a temporary moratorium on only new regulation. Moving the posts is trying to say that I asked for what you provided, I never did.
Do they oppose all regulation, or do they just disagree on what is reasonable?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
since there is a 'long history' of it.... I am sure you have a nice list of the reasonable environmental and safety regs they have opposed (noting who precisely it was that opposed them)???
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Boehner is the congressional rep from my home town region in Ohio. He has recently opposed the following;
Chemical Security Legislation
The Clean Water Protection Act
The Clean Water Restoration Act
The Solid Waste Importation and Management Act
The Toxic Right to Know Protection Act
The Clean Energy Act
To just name a few. These are hardly radical and are quite reasonable environmental and safety regulations.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Define reasonable. By SM standards anything suggested by anyone but the reactionary right is unreasonable.
That isn't what he said. You are making sweeping assumptions based on very little data and most hyperbole and over dramatic reactions from The Bimbo of the House.
“I think there’s probably a way to do this with an exemption for emergency regulations that may be needed for some particular agency or another,” Boehner said."
You are such a hack you should have credulity tatooed on your forehead in 48font and an exclamation mark on the end!
We are now debating whether corporations and conservative organization have opposed environmental and safety regulations? Is there really any question about that?
Well, you can give examples of what you think is a reasonable regulation that they oppose. Then we can have a conversation about whether it is reasonable or not, look up why the company might actually oppose the regulation other than "bottom line", actually hold a conversation. Currently we have simple accusations with nothing to tie them to...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I don't know about the former. I don't have a dog in that argument, That's between you and Nigel. However, the evidence is abundantly clear that for a very long time many conservatives have opposed very reasonable environmental and safety regulations. I'm not about to make a sweeping generalization that ALL conservatives oppose ALL regulations.
So because Boehner is against all new regulations but "thinks" there "probably" is a way to have an exemption for emergency regulations, I'm misrepresenting what he said? Fuck that. He's against new regulations. That's what he said. He's against new regulations.
Now, he may claim to be open to the possibilty of some new regulations in an emergency, but he can't even commit to that. He just thinks that probably maybe kinda sorta that might be something that somebody might possbile maybe consider.
Why don't we approach it from the other end? How about you give us an example of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting any proposed environmental or safety regulation in, say, the past five years.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
How about this one for starters. The Clean Air Act was opposed by every public utility company in the nation.
Again, I'm not making a sweeping generalization here about all conservatives and all regulations. I'll give credit where it's due. Do you know which President signed the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Environmental Protection Act (Which created OSHA and EPA) into law?
YOU define reasonable! Take a look at what federal regulations are doing to the private truck owners in this country. Look at our farmers, land management agencies, parks and rec departments. We are regulated, levied and taxed to hell and as each state teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, taxes, fees, and fines continue to sky rocket and the small guy pays through the nose!
Local cities here have raised their fees and fines so high that it is stroking out local businesses to the point they are leaving in droves. In one local city, they charge $125 for a jay walking ticket and $200 dollars for each traffic cone other agencies use to work on their city streets.
It's out of control and it's killing us!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
He's got a point there Damo.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Hey, I wasn't the one that qualified that environmental and safety regulations be reasonable and then failed to define what reasonable should be but if you want me to I will.
Environmental and Safety regulations should be based on standards that protect human health and safety and conserve and protect our ecological/environmental resources.
Let's see what they support:
The Chamber’s position on climate change:
The Chamber has in its public documents, Hill letters and testimony, supported efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. Our position is simple: There should be a comprehensive legislative solution that does not harm the economy, recognizes that the problem is international in scope, and aggressively promotes new technologies and efficiency. Protecting our economy and the environment for future generations are mutually achievable goals.
To that effect the Chamber created an achievable plan...
http://energyxxi.org/reports/Transition_Plan.pdf
While they opposed Waxman-Markley and using the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2, they support a comprehensive solution utilizing renewable energy (they also support funding research in this arena).
So... Even here we find that there is a disagreement as to which path to take to get to a similar destination.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No... of course they have opposed SOME environmental and safety regulations. But Mott stated that they oppose almost all REASONABLE measures. Since he also states that there is a long history of this, he should have NO PROBLEM citing a list of 'reasonable' regs that businesses have opposed.
cawacko
Well-known member
Doesn't the cliche the devil's in the details fit most regulations? I mean who is against clean air for instance? I think most people want to breath clean air but because something is named The Clean Air Act doesn't automatically mean it's good legislation. Look at No Child Left Behind. If one didn't like that legislation does that mean they are against kids or think some kids should be left behind? I think the obvious answer is you can be for kids but think NCLB was not good legislation.