This article is from Grist.com and it has to do with how House Republicans are currently trying to cut almost all funding for the EPA by basically doing the following, "(1 thwart progressive ideals; (2 Blah blah blah (3 JOBS FOR EVERYONE!!!" ...Did you notice something there. Like the fact that there is no step two. That is basically the republicans plans that by cutting speniding on important things like the EPA that this will somehow crate jobs. They aren't sure how, but trust them it will create jobs. They are implementing these provisions, not all at once, but by adding them in one provision at a time by putting them in as amendments on spending bills. The reason for cutting the EPA's funding? Well it is quite simple.
THE EPA HATES JOBS! According to Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo, the EPA, which employs 17,000 people, consists of a bunch of anti-job Marxists. "EPA would, I am sure, tell you that they are simply collecting a little bit of data on green houses gasses..." to learn a little bit more,"... about who is emitting greenhouse gases -- who or what, but this data is the very foundation of the EPA's effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda..." and that allwoing them this data will let them put their" ...regulatory nose inside the job-destroying tent." The next portion of the article tells you each of the different amendmants so I will let you read that in the article. But one plan specifically blocks any presidental funding for the presidents climate advisor. They call this a "climate czar." Now I found this funny as czar is russian, so obviously it is a Communist position and since they oppose Marxism, this position must be eliminated. The republicans are so determined they would rather shut down the Government rather than give a single inch on this position.
OpinionI have no idea what the Republicans were thinking when they thought up this plan. I don't know why they think that the EPA is trying to destroy jobs and the only proof that Republicans have is that the EPA would shut down a business, because the business was not enviromentally friendly. When I saw this article I immediatly thought about class because it talked about how the "GOP would rather shut down the government that protext your air and wate" and protecting our water is exactly what we were talking about in class for the last few days.
QUESTIONS1) What do you think about this? Who do you side with?
2) Do you agree with the thought the EPA could ruin all jobs?
3) What would you do with the EPA?
I hate the two party system, but Republicans especially spout complete nonsense. How will cutting funding create jobs? More money = more projects = more jobs. Less money = layoffs. Duh. The logic flaws and complete misinformation on display here are really funny until you realize these are the people that run our country. For example:
ReplyDeleteMarxism = no jobs . False. False, false, false, absolutely false. In Marxist economies, absolutely EVERYONE has a job, it's required. In fact, employment in a Marxist economy would be 100%, whereas employment in America, a mostly capitalist country, currently hovers around 90%.
Czars are communists. Uh, no, definitely not. "Czars", in the Russian/Slavic sense of the word, are supreme rulers of the monarchial variety. Communists and czars were directly opposed. One of the first, and one of the most important, events of the Bolshevik Revolution (which was when Russia went communist) was the brutal murder of Tsar Nicolas II and his family, ending czarist rule in Russia. So no, czar DOES NOT equal communist.
This is just another example of Republicans fooling uninformed Americans into putting business before people. I feel that environment is far more important than a few businesses who engage in unethical and unlawful practices but legistlation in America, especially when written by Republicans, generally does the opposite. They really have their priorities completely out of order. When I go to the store to buy something, I want to know that not only is what I'm buying safe for my consumption, but also produced in a way that doesn't harm the environment. Knowing that government organizations such as the EPA have put certain standards are in place offers me some peace of mind.
Answer:
2) No, I vehemently disagree. Sure, jobs will temporarily be lost. But that could be said whenever a business closes. But market share will need to be filled by other existing companies or startups, who will hire some of the laid off. Others can be re-trained to better fit the needs of the current state of the world. For example, if the EPA was to shut down a coal mine a program could be created to retrain the miners so they can find jobs in other energy fields, such as wind turbine mechanics or geothermal drillers.
First of all, darn you, Kate for beating me to the punch about Russian politics and Marxism, which, by the way, was never mentioned in the article that Alan's article linked to at that text. So +1 for the Republicans on that point.
ReplyDeleteBut Kate is completely right. Republicans have a bad track record (though you won't hear this from any media outlet, especially FOX) for jumping to conclusions and spreading propaganda to advance their agendas and fool the public into thinking that they are right when they are complete and utter morons. (see SARAH PALIN and CHRISTINE O'DONNELL) This is like the whole story about death panels. They are jumping from point A to point Z and skipping the rest of the alphabet of logical and rational thought.
This reminds me of how we talked about the need for government policy to help keep our environment from going to hell in a hand-basket. If the Republicans want to continue to put big industries ahead of the environment, (see OIL LOBBYISTS), then when we start to have serious consequences because of our lack of attention to nature, then people aren't going to be worried about jobs. They will be worried about surviving.
1) I definitely side w/ the EPA for reasons hopefully made clear above. If not, here's a summary: REPUBLICANS HAVE MANURE FOR BRAINS
2) My answer here pretty much goes along with Kate. If an environmentally irresponsible company gets shut down, the workers can get jobs in the same field at companies that get the EPA's recommendation. And the EPA doesn't shut down companies automatically. They just fine them at first for relatively minor offenses. So you wouldn't even HAVE a jobs issue there.
3) I think we should be giving the EPA more money. I think they do a great job to make sure that our children and grandchildren have a healthy environment to live in so my kid doesn't have to find his way through smog on a bike ride.
Opinion/Reflection:
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that the Republicans are being ridiculous. There is no reason for them to cut the EPA’s funding. All the EPA is trying to do is make sure the environment doesn’t get polluted or destroyed. All of their work, though, is for human benefit. Like we learned in class, if the world becomes too polluted, people will start to suffer from some serious health effects. And if the situation gets too bad, then people might even die. So why the Republicans would want to cut the EPA’s funding, I have no idea. The EPA needs all the money they currently have in order to do all their daily tasks the best they can. After all, we want our environment to stay clean so people and animals can continue living in it. I agree with Alan on the part about how the Republicans are just simply saying they will create jobs. Even by cutting the EPA’s spending, they’re still not going to have any power to create jobs. I personally feel that they’re only saying all this just to look good in front of the public so they can get votes.
Answer the Questions:
1) I think that the Republicans are being unreasonable. Whether they want votes or not, there is no need for them to claim that they will create jobs by cutting the EPA’s spending. It’s just unrealistic. And when the time comes, do you honestly think that the Republicans will create these jobs? The answer is plain and simple: no. So, I side with the EPA 100 percent.
2) No, I strongly disagree with the thought that the EPA could ruin all jobs. I mean, every organization has to spend money in order to function, so why can’t the Republicans focus all their attention on some meaningless organization so that the EPA can keep running? All the EPA wants to do is good for the environment, and there is no need for the Republicans to interfere with their mission. I do not believe that the EPA would ever try to ruin any job opportunities.
3) If I were part of the Republican Party, I wouldn’t do anything to the EPA. Simply, I would just let them be. Personally I think that the EPA is only doing good things and I would be more likely to increase their spending than cut it. This would allow them to keep on with their mission and help out the environment even more.
Ask More Questions:
1. If the Republicans cut the EPA’s spending, do you think they could create new jobs? If so, would they?
2. Why do you think the Republicans want to cut the EPA’s spending? Is it really because the EPA wants to ruin jobs, or are they just saying that to gain publicity?
3. Who do you feel has the power in this situation?
4. Is the Republicans plan to create new jobs realistic? (Think about whether or not they have an idea of how to do that)
5. Do you think that the EPA’s spending should be cut?
Here are a few URLs of graphics I found (I couldn't figure out how to insert the image into the comment box)
http://truthwalker.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/the-associated-press-100-years-of-pure-unadultrated-crap/
This graphic is the EPA's symbol.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/epa_seal1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.celsias.com/article/epa-greenhouse-gases-threaten-public-health-and-en/&usg=__h0xOlHdO03koLXiUm0DdvYPDdP0=&h=900&w=900&sz=55&hl=en&start=0&sig2=kyudwSpF5QysIH9imJ9TgQ&zoom=1&tbnid=0xShyhkyfZYXeM:&tbnh=170&tbnw=170&ei=4MB2TbvoCPSF0QGvoIC1Bw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DEPa%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1362%26bih%3D517%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=640&oei=4MB2TbvoCPSF0QGvoIC1Bw&page=1&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=78&ty=64
This image is an ad against the EPA, and this whole article is all about how the Republicans have a problem with the EPA.
Sorry, I didn't read the actual article, only the summary. But (in political theory) Marxism and communism are nearly synonymous anyway.
ReplyDeleteInteresting posts everyone. It is nice to hear a political take on some of these issues, I hope both Dem's and Republicans can find the middle ground, protect the environment while supporting the creation of new jobs.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to politics I generally don't like to go completely left or right. However, the republicans are wrong on this issue. I really don't see a reason for the EPA wanting people to lose their jobs. What good would that bring them? They're just trying to help the environment, which helps everybody. I do understand that in order to create more jobs, the goverment will have to cut funding on some projects, but you can't go out and say that the people in it hate jobs. That's just completely stupid. It's like a kid asking another kid for money to buy candy, and the kid says no, so the other guy says he hates candy. It just doesn't make sense.
ReplyDelete2). No, I don't think it could ruin all jobs. It seems like the republicans just wanted to point their finger at somebody
New Questions:
1). Why do you think the republicans blamed the EPA?
2). Where do you think the democrats stand on this issue?
3). What do you think the EPA will do about this?