EPA – Did Protection Agency Conduct “Lethal” Experiments?

12 Responses to EPA – Did Protection Agency Conduct “Lethal” Experiments?

1. Pie Guevara says:

   Monday, October 8, 2012 at 3:13 pm

   Could it be the EPA is just another statu quo government agency which does what all government agencies … er, dynasties … do — seek a reason to exist and expand their already bloated budgets?

   I would like to pay the fat cat, overpaid, golden benefits leadership of the EPA $12/hour to be connected to the short bus exhaust pipe.

   Reply
2. Libby says:

   Monday, October 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm

   Well, at least they knew what they were getting into, instead of being perpetrated upon without their knowledge. But it’s alot like “volunteering” for the Army when there is no work to be had, at all, in three counties. I don’t like it either.

   Besides, isn’t it already proven that those guys who wear leaf-blowers are loosing brain cells at an alarming rate?

   Reply
3. Tina says:

   Monday, October 8, 2012 at 7:22 pm

   Libby: “Well, at least they knew what they were getting into…”…”Besides, isn’t it already proven that those guys who wear leaf-blowers are loosing brain cells…”

   Excuses, Libby? Really?

   You know something we don’t?

   What if all the volunteers were brown people…would it be an outrage then?

   I know…maybe these were the “jobs” that brought that unemployment number down!

   Reply
4. Pie Guevara says:

   Monday, October 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm

   How much poverty and debt can a nation withstand
   Before it withers away?

   How many jobs must our work force lose
   Before people suck filth for the EPA?

   And how many times can a progressive turn a blind eye
   And pretend that she just doesn’t see?

   The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind
   The answer is blowing in Libbya’s wind.

   Reply
5. Gate says:

   Monday, October 8, 2012 at 9:13 pm

   Good find Tina.

   IF ever there was an alphabet agency that needed to be put out of business, its the EPA.

   Those testimonies resulted in the strict emission requirements for current day diesel trucks and ULSD fuel that was probably not even needed or required, similar to their global warm farce.

   Millions, if not billions of consumer (our) dollars have been spent because of these Nazis, and thats not even counting the billions it took to research and refining it making it. Any wonder it cost $5/gal in some places.

   They need to GO!!!

   Liberalism is a dangerous mental disease that needs to be eradicated from the planet.

   Reply
6. Libby says:

   Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 12:26 pm

   “Excuses, Libby? Really?”

   No. Factual qualifications. I said I didn’t like it either.

   Was I supposed to defend it cause it happened under the Obama watch? That would be pure partisan idiocy. I don’t do that.

   Reply
7. Tina says:

   Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 2:35 pm

   Oh yes Libby…you do engage in partisan idiocy.

   I maintain that if this were just “brown people” you would be all over it and IF it happened under a republican administration you would be screaming bloody murder!

   Reply
8. Tina says:

   Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 2:37 pm

   Gate excellent points. The amount of our tax money that is wasted on tripe year after year and that is charged to business (preventing lower prices and more hiring) is unimaginable. Given the size of our debt that is saying something!

   Smaller government with control close to home is what we need but even with great effort it will take generations to undo what has been done.

   Reply
9. Libby says:

   Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 5:43 pm

   “I maintain that if this were just “brown people” ….”

   I’m sure some of them were. They were all, undoubtedly, poor people, forced by Republican economic policy to earn their living by putting themselves at risk of physical harm.

   You try and change the subject as many times as you like … and I will bring it right back.

   Reply
10. Tina says:

    Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Libby: “…forced by Republican economic policy to earn their living by putting themselves at risk of physical harm.”

    Oh my…you really have gone off the rail! Please tell me what republican policy forces people to earn a living by putting themselves at risk. I can’t wait!

    And as far as changing the subject…you do it all the time to avoid the uncomfortable truth about the failures of progressive policy and thought:

    1. Every single entitlement program designed by liberals for power rather than prosper…fail

    2. The very progressive education model of union organization and power over students, 2+2 equals “whatever”, and group rights over human dignity that has taken this nation to the bottom in achievement and preparedness for adult life.

    3. Progressive notions of morality that place the self above family, community and commitment and push an anything goes lifestyle.

    4. EPA standards and regulation based on junk science that results in unnecessary expenditures and costs and idiocy like this little experiment!

    The EPA regulations and thinking that designed this insanity is progressive through and through. Al Gore and his nutty associates and followers are responsible for this and it fits squarely in the Democrat green control freak Party.

    I don’t care how many times you come back this ugly, unworkable stuff will still be true. Admitting failure and correcting isn’t something your party does well either. They double down instead cause its all about control.

    Reply
11. Libby says:

    Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 10:49 am

    “Please tell me what republican policy forces people to earn a living by putting themselves at risk.”

    Well, there was the eight years of laissez faire that allowed Wall Street to construct a huge bubble of wildly duplicitous financial products … which burst … and evaporated many billions of dollars of capital, resulting in a very high rate of unemployment which …

    forced any number of poor people to take work that put them in harm’s way.

    Did you think we’d forgotten?

    And then you go off on another rant … on a bunch of other subjects … again. It’s actually getting boring.

    Reply
12. Tina says:

    Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Libby: “Well, there was the eight years of laissez faire that allowed Wall Street to construct a huge bubble of wildly duplicitous financial products…”

    If anyone was engaging in laissez faire it was Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) Charles Schummer (Democrat New York), and Chris Dodd (Democrat, Connecticut). Video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

    See also here:

    http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-white-house-warned-congress-about-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone/

    For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the Presidents repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. (timeline follows)

    Laissez fair is not a position that supports no regulation; it is a philosophy that supports smart regulation to protect the people and opposes government tinkering:

    Laissez faire 1: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights

    2: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action

    The housing bubble and resulting crashed based on toxic bundled loans was a product of government intrusion into the market. Legislation passed by democrats in Congress and supported by Bill Clinton (probably for votes) forced banks to make loans based on unsound business practices and encouraged lenders, Countrywide being one of the worst, to relax lending requirements. This government tinkering made millions for democrats at the helm at Fannie Mae who made it clear that under their oversight Fannie Mae would welcome the chance to buy those bundles toxic securities…one of them was prosecuted for cooking the books.

    You cannot name a single piece of legislation put forward by republicans that had anything to do with this mess or forces people to put themselves at risk to earn a living!

    “Did you think we’d forgotten?”

    No! I think you are either deliberately lying about what happened or you are incredibly stupid. I don’t think you are stupid.

    “And then you go off on another rant…”

    A related rant that you would rather not think about just like you would rather not think about or admit the real causes of the housing bubble and banking melt down.

    America needs regulation. We need regulation that supports business in conducting their affairs ethically and soundly. We do not need regulation that attempt to spread the wealth or engineer social fairness. We do not need regulation that encourages unscrupulous practices and greed…that is exactly what happened with Bill Clinton’s housing/loan regulation and MORE:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-bill-clintons-balanced-budget-destroyed-the-economy-2012-9

    Through rigorous enforcement of housing mandates such as the Community Reinvestment Act, and by prodding mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make loans to people with lower credit scores (and to buy loans that had been made by banks and, later, innovators like Countrywide).

    The Housing Department was Fannie and Freddies top regulator and under Cuomo the mortgage giants were forced to start ramping up programs to issue more subprime loans to the riskiest of borrowers. …

    …In addition to being remembered for a strong economy, Bill Clinton is remembered as the last President to preside over balanced budgets.

    Given the salience of the national debt issue in American politics today, the surpluses are a major mark of pride for the former President (and arguably the entire country). They shouldn’t be.

    “I think it is safe to say that we are still suffering the harmful effects of the Clinton budget surpluses,” says Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at the University of Missouri Kansas City.

    To understand why, you first need to understand that the components of GDP looks like this:

    \mathrm{GDP} = C + I + G + \left ( \mathrm{X} – M \right )

    In the above equation, C is private consumption (spending). I is investment spending. G is government spending. And ‘X-M’ is exports-minus imports (essentially the trade surpus).

    Here’s a chart of the government budget around the years during and right after Clinton, in case you need a reminder that the government was in surplus near the end of his tenure.

    If the government is in surplus, it means that the government is taking in more cash than it’s spending, which is the opposite of stimulus.

    It’s also well known that the US trade deficit exploded during the late 90s, which means that ‘X-M’ was also a huge drag on GDP during his years.

    So the trade deficit was subtracting from GDP, and the government was sucking up more money from the private sector than it was pushing out.

    There was only one “sector” of the economy left to compensate: Private consumption. And private consumption compensated for the drags from government and trade in two ways.

    First, the household savings rate collapsed during the Clinton years.

    And even more ominously, household debt began to surge.

    So already you can see how the crisis started to germinate under Clinton.

    As his trade and budget policies became a drag on the economy, households spent and went into debt like never before.

    Economist Stephanie Kelton expounded further in an email to Business Insider:

    “Now, you might ask, “What’s the matter with a negative private sector balance?”. We had that during the Clinton boom, and we had low inflation, decent growth and very low unemployment. The Goldilocks economy, as it was known. The great moderation. Again, few economists saw what was happening with any degree of clarity. My colleagues at the Levy Institute were not fooled. Wynne Godley wrote brilliant stuff during this period. While the CBO was predicting surpluses “as far as the eye can see” (15+ years in their forecasts), Wynne said it would never happen. He knew it couldn’t because the government could only run surpluses for 15+ years if the domestic private sector ran deficits for 15+ years. The CBO had it all wrong, and they had it wrong because they did not understand the implications of their forecast for the rest of the economy. The private sector cannot survive in negative territory. It cannot go on, year after year, spending more than its income. It is not like the US government. It cannot support rising indebtedness in perpetuity. It is not a currency issuer. Eventually, something will give. And when it does, the private sector will retrench, the economy will contract, and the government’s budget will move back into deficit.”

    When the government is running a surplus, it no longer has to issue much debt. But risk-free government bonds are a crucial component of portfolios for all kinds of financial institutions, and for mom & pop investors who like the safety of regularly Treasury payouts. The yield on the 10-year bond was over 5% back in those days… nothing to sneeze at for people planning for a retirement.

    This created a bit of a crisis.

    Bond trader Kevin Ferry, a veteran of the scene, told Business Insider about the panic that was unfolding over the government’s lack of debt.

    “OMG, they were all saying… there wasn’t going to be any paper!”

    How did the markets react?

    “Lo and behold… [Fannie and Freddie] issuance “SURGED” in the late 90s,” said Ferry.

    Everything changed. While the government dramatically slowed down issuance of Treasuries, Fannie and Freddie picked up the baton and started selling debt like never before.

    “Prior to those years there were not regular [Fannie and Freddie] auctions.”

    “The system wanted it.”

    “The fear was that there wasn’t going to be any…. There was no bill auctions.”

    “The brokers were calling up ma & pa and said there’s no more T-Bill auctions!”

    And the data bears this out.

    Total agency issuance of mortgage backed securities spiked in 1998 and 1999, and from then on they never looked back.

    Read the article…charts included!

    Reply