“The biggest threat is from people who seem to be informed, but who only have half the picture and yell that they know the truth from the top of the mountain. And they gather followers who also know only a portion of the picture and-or consider only the truths they are told by those who have taken only enough time to learn half of the story. “

Something about pots and kettles comes to mind…

“If I wasn’t so optimistic I would say this country is going to go to **** in a basket.“

Agreed. Curious however, how that is coinciding with GOP’s victories in advancing their agenda though, isn’t it?

“For now, we are wasting zillions and the EPA is the least of our problems.“

Again agreed, especially since the EPA is a net positive (as already noted below in my reply to BJK) and serves to protect people’s personal and property rights from aggression by polluters. So why then are the Paul’s and the GOP attacking it with corporate money?

“The military occupations around the world (ever growing, you see) are one of the few businesses this country has left. “

Yes because the GOP is pushing for wars and their polices makes it easier for bigger corporations squeeze out and consume smaller businesses at an alarming rate. Funny how the USA’s recent wars seem to center around oil isn’t it?

“there is pure speculation that Obama is not going to let this xborder pollution thing pass. Many are thinking it is simply too dangerous to enact at this point, but Big O wanted to hold it for a while as a political teaser for his constits“

Well they already have the regulations in place for restricting pollution specifically since it does cross state borders.
Obama doesn’t need to approve anything there at all, so his view is irrelevant, with the exception of the other pro-special interest decisions he has already made at the expense of the public’s health. The issue discussed was Rand Paul trying to undo those regulations that are protecting the public from being poisoned for profit (you know, increasing pollution). Maybe you are thinking of something else? Your comment was rather vague.

“We’ll see , I guess. What happens happens!“

At this rate….
Arctic being ice free in summer by the 2030’s. Bye, bye polar bears.
No more glaciers in Glacier National Park by around 2030 (possibly the 2020’s). There used to 150 glaciers there, today there are 25. —–> Twilight of the Glaciers
Increasing rates of alternations between flood and droughts, with other extreme weather thrown in depending on the region.
Increasing volatility in food prices as agriculture become increasingly difficult, until most agriculture is moved indoors.
Increase spread of disease and pests into areas they used to not live in.
More wars in the middle east as long as the world relies on oil.
More damage caused by coal pollution and nuclear accidents.
How’s that sounding so far?

No it’s an accurate description because that is exactly the result of such policies, Note that they still have nothing to do with paper money and whether it’s OK for large companies to get a massive form of corporate welfare by being allowed to force the costs to be externalized onto the public.

“Get back to the points at hand.“

No. The point at hand is trying to gut the EPA and the resulting increase in pollution/harm it would cause.
Go back and look at the title of the article. See? Nothing there about currency policy.
Go back and look at your first post here. See? Nothing there about the gold standard either.
The only person attempting to change the subject here is you. Why?
Why haven’t you addressed the question as to what give one company/state the right to force another states to bear the cost of it’s pollution?

One last note for now, we have taken a look at your “puzzle”. In fact we have many historical examples of how much of it doesn’t work. There are just some things the market can’t handle without government regulation, period. Pollution is one of those issues. Please see the historical prescient of rivers catching of fire in the USA, and the current issue of global warming for further clarification.

Best of luck to you. May you encounter good sense along your way….

The power of the hatred and level of cynicism should be of great concern to anyone who sees it clearly and who cares about this country as a system – not just as a pile of problems to fix one by one, independently and with a mindset of compartmentalization. Only the most focused and selfless of us will be able to allow ourselves to take the time out of our days to learn the truth, fight for the truths, and actually effect positive change in this country.

The biggest threat is from people who seem to be informed, but who only have half the picture and yell that they know the truth from the top of the mountain. And they gather followers who also know only a portion of the picture and-or consider only the truths they are told by those who have taken only enough time to learn half of the story.

If I wasn’t so optimistic I would say this country is going to go to **** in a basket. But I am not afraid to work and work and work and work in hopes that my efforts can help open some minds and they can open some minds and at some point urge and guide (aka vote) get this country back to a realistic pragmatic path. For now, we are wasting zillions and the EPA is the least of our problems. The military occupations around the world (ever growing, you see) are one of the few businesses this country has left. Sad to say.

Ps – if you agree with me and Paul, I want to share this with you – there is pure speculation that Obama is not going to let this xborder pollution thing pass. Many are thinking it is simply too dangerous to enact at this point, but Big O wanted to hold it for a while as a political teaser for his constits. A tool until the elections get closer and then he can delay it. We’ll see , I guess. What happens happens!

Regarding the EPA and other ineffective (relative to the money invested/spent/given): most people want to cheer for clean air and babies and all things sweet — without realistically considering who is best to champion the cause all the while considering the costs which will be incurred by championing the cause. Follow me.

Considering that our country is based on fake money and a fake monetary system which siphons wealth from people like you and me into the hands of people who will benefit by good *or* bad decisions equally, well, we all would do well to consider just where the money comes from and how we should spend it more wisely.

With the fake money, we can continue to finance bad ideas — until one day this country won’t exist in any good state. There is a reason the rich keep getting richer and inflation exists and
China owns us and bad ideas get financed again and again and again. It’s because nobody wants to fix the problem at the core — fake money and the people who benefit from it. And who get cheerleaders to cheer for “good things” like we all want . Without consideration for the future of the fiscal STABILITY and equity of the nation. Try living without a sustainable supply of money and jobs and you’ll see why we are concerned about getting this ship on course sooner than later.

Clean air is very important too. Don’t get me wrong. But it won’t kill you as quickly as starving will. if this sounds alarmist, I apologize . It isn’t meant to be . It is meant to be pessimistically realist.

Fake money financing bad ideas (at any and all costs) … that’s at the foundation of what people like the Pauls are getting to, and as Americans (think freedom and open discussion and the critical thought which can come from both of those — instead of captive minds and support for “the cause” — the end at any cost and means), well, you might see that just because we were given/blessed with an EPA by certain elected officials does not mean that they are the best for the job, nor does it mean that in this day and age they might not be better downsized and replaced with OTHER controlling measures.

That’s the point the Pauls make above all. Nobody, absolutely nobody wants to live in a nation where toxins are floating in the air. To position your political and eco-idea opponents as “poisoners” or whatever is unproductive and diversionary at best.

Get back to the points at hand. We have a fiat money, corrupt and/or misguided government, a population who thinks cheerleading is good enough (when real considerate education is still sorely needed before the cheering can start and do any good) and you have a situation where this country is going to go further down the tubes if we don’t start thinking critically.

I wish it wasn’t so. I live in the USA. I have friends here. I am a nature lover, and a lover of all things good and clean. But what I hate at the top of my list are wasteful people, polluters, and sloppy greedy people. This country needs a cleaning starting in DC. Then it needs a haircut. Again , starting at DC and at the fiscal level.

I don’t expect this diatribe will make too much sense since I am afraid most cheerleaders haven’t taken the time to take all classes required to see how the puzzle will actually work. Just like highschool — often only the best brightest cheerleaders go on to be great leaders. Many of them simply didn’t pay attention in history or civics classes . They were too busy with sports, boys, girls, etc.

Best to you all. We’re gonna need it.

“”Unworkable and expensive ideas do not make good policy nor do they fix the problem. ”

No they don’t make good policy. Good thing the EPA isn’t proposing anything like that. Care to offer a specific example so that we can publicly shoot it down?”

“unaccountable know-all” [sic]

I think you mean ‘qualified experts in the relevant fields that are accountable to the dully elected representative in congress’. BTW do you think we should have people that know nothing about pollution making these kinds of decisions? I could never understand that line of “reasoning”.

It just so happens that these “over-burdensome” codes often create new jobs and save the country money in the long run. For example the Clean Air Act has cost the country $53 billion in 2010, but it has saved over $1.3 trillion in costs to health care costs in 2010 alone by reducing pollution, and other benefits too.
—–> The UCS Clean Air Act Ticker
—–> EPA bashers aren’t protecting ‘jobs,’ they’re protecting polluters

Why is it though, that right-wing types usually think that it’s morally acceptable for for large companies to poison the public with their waste products rather than clean up after themselves? That’s something else that doesn’t make any sense. Why should large companies be able to force the public (i.e. the taxpayer) to pay for the messes they create? Do you like corporate welfare? Because that’s what getting rid of the EPA amounts to.

I’d also like to see your explanation for how environmental laws are responsible for the multiple wars and tax cuts for the rich that have turned the federal budget that was at a surplus under Clinton into a defect before George W. Bush even finished his first term. Really, I’d like to hear that explanation. Can you maybe even find a way to blame the EPA for the banking scandal that has scuttled the economy?

“ Unworkable and expensive ideas do not make good policy nor do they fix the problem. “

No they don’t make good policy. Good thing the EPA isn’t proposing anything like that. Care to offer a specific example so that we can publicly shoot it down?

“ Our federal government has infringed on the rights of states and individuals beyond allowed by the 10th Amendment. “

You seem to conveniently be leaving out the 14th amendment that overrides much of that in many cases.

“ It is acting unconstitutionally “

Technically, no it’s not. But have fun arguing that in court!

What techieguy1 said is correct, that is in fact the corporation funded GOP/libertarian agenda whether the voters for their party realize it or not. just look at the laws attempting to roll back child labor laws and so forth in this country.

The Pauls live in a fantasy land.

It’s like people who get caught up in reincarnation, learning about their previous lives in which all were princesses and kings.

In Paul-land everyone lives in a castle with their own armed guards and bottomless bank accounts, never getting crapped on by those above them. We need to send these idiots off to play computer games.

I’m very happy that this rule has passed. With this and the Keystone XL kick the can down the road, I think the climate movement can build some momentum heading into these elections.

Rand Paul may not “want to pour oil or mercury” into our food, but that will be the result since he just doesn’t care about the consequences of his dogma. This is because in his interpretation of property rights only big companies matter, not the victims of pollution. At best the victims only get a say *after* the damage has been done…if then. Rand Paul is attempting to return us to the days when our rivers were catching on fire (literally, look it up) because all of the states were just passing the pollution downstream. Do you really think that it’s a coincidence that most of the money behind the push to roll back pollution protections on so-called “Libertarian” grounds comes from the same major corporations that do much of the polluting and would profit the most from rolling back such regulations?

Ron let his campaign manager die a terrible death without providing him with health insurance or even doing the “libertarian” thing and kicking in some bucks to help him out. Ron left the hospital holding the $400,000 bag.

Had Ron, the physician, helped out his employee with health insurance the poor guy might have been able to get treatment before it was too late.
Rand may not want to pour oil or mercury in your coffee or cereal but in his absurd view of how government should (not) work he will do nothing to keep others from pouring oil or mercury in your coffee or cereal. Leave governing up to Rand and you’re on your own against any industry that wants to screw you over, buddy.

Look at it with a critical eye. I can assure you, Rand Paul doesn’t want to pour oil or mercury into your coffee or cereal. Get serious.