Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  > What is wrong this generation of people?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 40
What is wrong this generation of people?Page 4 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
BTW ACE, what is it to you if someone else is selfish or greedy? That only leaves a bigger chance for honest people to shine.


I think this is somewhat naive. Would be nice though.

I do hear you about over-regulation. Striking the balance isn't always easy. And we do need to be careful about special interests writing anticompetitive advantages into law--such as the exemption from antitrust laws for health-care insurers. How come y'all aren't screaming about that?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 41
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 7:19:24 AM
BTW, what U.S. electric plants these days are putting out significant amounts of sulfur dioxide?


How many of them still would be if they weren't required to scrub their discharges? When such measures are voluntary, those who spend money on the technology are put at a competitive disadvantage WRT those who don't. Hence the need for standard regulation. Can it be overdone? Of course it can. But so can unrestrained competition.

Again, I'm not against competition as long as it rewards the creation of added value. But without adequate regulation, unbridled competition rewards perfidy more often than not.


I think all the major federal environmental laws should be repealed--not one of them has been worth what it's cost. Most of them were responses to public emotions, rather than reason.


Yes, people do tend to get emotional about it when they discover their property or interests are being degraded by the acts of others. The question is not whether or not they are being rational. They don't have to be rational about their rights or their access to our common legacy. The cops don't help us live better either. Prisons are strictly overhead. The question is: how much of that actually is necessary to protect individual rights from unfair competition or criminal practices?

If you answer, "none," it is not necessarily those calling for appropriate regulation who are being unreasonable.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 42
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 7:48:09 AM

^^^^^That's sort of a novel take on Adam Smith. During the 200-plus years since Wealth of Nations appeared, most people who've understood the ideas in it haven't considered them irrational nonsense.


The price-setting mechanism of supply and demand within a free and open market that includes an adequate number of buyers and sellers such that no one player or group can exert undue influence is well understood and valid. Applying that model to situations where those conditions do not apply (such as when there are few suppliers or purchasers, or in third-party transactions where the buyer is not the consumer or the seller is not the one paying the costs) is irrational nonsense.

But hey, if it feels better to us to chant "let the markets rule" than to think things through and respond appropriately to actual conditions, we can't really expect young people who watch us to have a whole lot of respect for our advice.

When there actually is a market, I say let it rule. But first, let's check to see if the conditions of the model are satisfied. If they are not, we need to restructure the conditions to fit the model or apply another model that fits the conditions. There are other alternative models besides "Capitalism," and "Socialism." One such model is the private regulated monopoly, which has served us well in many instances. Others include tweaks to capitalism that provide greater accountability at the top. But, if all you can see is the golden idol of unfettered Capitalism vs. the slippery slope to Socialism, you're simply being ridiculous.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 43
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 12:20:09 PM

Yes, people do tend to get emotional about it when they discover their property or interests are being degraded by the acts of others.


You're assuming that was why Congress enacted these laws, but I don't think the facts warrant that assumption. CERCLA is the best example of the irrationality I'm talking about. The pollution of the Love Canal near Buffalo received a lot of lurid, overblown press coverage, and as usual, the gullible took the bait. Before long, it seemed like everyone in Congress was trying to appear more concerned about this issue than the next one.

Infected by the fatal urge to "do something," and determined to show their constituents they were "greener than thou," a number of them rushed to draft a law. No, it wasn't enough to let New York to fix the problem. This terrible menace must never be allowed to crop up again, anywhere in the U.S.

And so we ended up with an incoherent, internally inconsistent monstrosity of a federal law. It should have been repealed long ago, just as awful, unreasoned Supreme Court blunders like Miranda and Roe should long ago have been overruled. But like them, the longer CERCLA was allowed to live, the more likely it was to live even longer. And it's been a money pit.

Thirty years on, the list of sites the Act's "Superfund" was to pay for EPA to clean up has only been dented. It will never be finished. And about a fourth of the billions spent on the "problem" has gone to lawyers' fees. The hazards that have been corrected weren't even close to being serious enough to justify the fantastic expense. And as I said, studies have shown the same is true of all the major federal environmental laws.

It's ironic that you mention environmental pollution as degrading other people's property or interests. The laws intended to control that pollution have done far more to degrade the liberty interests and property rights of all 300 million of us. All social planning is sort of a pink endeavor, and in the U.S., federal government planning intended to protect natural resources has been more anti-democratic and overbearing than most people have any idea of. It's largely because a clean environment sounds so wonderful that people have tolerated the violation of their wallets and their personal liberties that efforts to achieve it have caused.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 44
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 1:30:53 PM
And so we ended up with an incoherent, internally inconsistent monstrosity of a federal law. It should have been repealed long ago ... All social planning is sort of a pink endeavor, and in the U.S., federal government planning intended to protect natural resources has been more anti-democratic and overbearing than most people have any idea of.


Here again, it's the all-or-nothing mindset that I find irrational. If you repeal those laws and don't replace them, all of the protective measures that safeguard third parties will be scrapped because they cost money. If too much protection is now being mandated for no good reason, what level of protection is appropriate? "None" is simply the wrong answer and you know it.

Your position is just as bad as that of the Luddites who don't want the desert disturbed by new solar-electricity generation facilities. You would put the health and prosperity of current and future generations at risk to further your ideology. Federal regulation is appropriate when business operations have effects that cross state boundaries, or when businesses cannot operate under a patchwork of differing state regulations.

You might favor the patchwork and be able to rest your argument on the enumerated powers doctrine. That is a respectable position. But, it might not be a practical one when it comes down to specific cases. Congress can assert federal jurisdiction in such cases under the interstate commerce clause.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 45
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 4:35:04 PM
Somehow we got along before CERCLA was enacted, just as we got along before there was an EPA, or a WIC program, or a separate Department of Education. I don't see why repealing a bad law leaves us with "nothing." There were quite a few state and federal laws protecting natural resources long before 1970. The Clean Water Act, for example, wasn't really a completely new law. It was a very extensive revision and expansion of the Clean Water Act of 1948. U.S. waters were also protected by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The RHA was working just fine even in the mid-1960's.

I had to research this stuff in detail as background for an article on a federal case involving the section of the CWA that covers dredging. These laws are like phone books--they take up whole volumes of the Federal Code, and the regulations for them do the same with the Code of Federal Regulations. They use up all the numerals and letters in the standard outline system. You often see things like: section 4903.7(d)(5)B(iii). The more I pored over the Congressional Record, old law review articles, books, etc., in some sub-basement of the library, the more I realized what a political nature these laws had. As with CERCLA, the CWA was as much a creature of emotion and highly colored (and inaccurate) news stories, as it was a reasoned response to a problem everyone acknowledged.

Once these laws are established, though, along with the agencies to enforce them, we need lawyers to advise landowners what they can and can't do, testing companies to take core samples using the method agency regulations prescribe, and on and on. And all these tens of thousands of people come to rely on their jobs, so they become a political force resisting any attempt to trim things back--let alone dissolve the whole enterprise. On the railroads, preserving jobs that weren't worthwhile was called "featherbedding." No one's as good at it as federal bureaucrats. They infringe our freedoms every day, and since none of them is elected, we can't even vote them out.

But I realize the arbitrary exercise of power, which violates the whole spirit of the Constitution, probably bothers me more than most people. The way I learned it, we were *supposed* to be jealous of our freedoms, and distrustful of any attempt by a government to limit them. I guess all that concern for individual freedom is probably unnecessary, though. Surely all these government actions are for the good of all of us, and we should welcome whatever minor loss of freedom each one involves. Of course, all those losses add up, but we'll get used to them.

I'm more than willing to risk the health and prosperity of future generations, when a measure that's supposed to preserve them imposes unreasonable costs on people today. At what point do incremental improvements become absurdly expensive? Why don't we make all ships out of stainless steel, for example, so they'd never rust? Why don't we make electric wire out of silver? After all, it's a slightly better conductor than copper. And if it makes highway travel safer to lower the speed limit to 55, why stop there? Shouldn't we lower it to, say, 20, 0r 15, to save even more lives? Who cares how many billions a year it costs the country in lost productivity?

You mentioned the Commerce Clause. It's not as clear as you suggest that it authorizes federal control where state regulations differ. There are a lot of Supreme Court decisions on just that question, and they break both ways. As for effects that cross state boundaries, I suppose that can be stretched to fit anything, now that Ms. Sotomayor (that tower of intellect) is on the Court. Where our federal government needs to have power over us, we can always (with the Court's help, of course) find a way to get it that power. That puts an ironic new twist on old Abe's "government *of* the people," certainly--but he's dead, and this is now.

A type of bird might live near a puddle that formed in someone's parking lot when it rained. And a smudge of some EPA-listed pollutant in the runoff from the turf nearby might have entered that puddle. Maybe we could detect it, with fine enough equipment. What if that bird did live near the puddle, splashed in it, flew a hundred miles, and crossed into the next state? No bird like it's ever been known to fly more than ninety miles, but this one could be an outlier. Couldn't the puddle be considered a "seasonal water of the United States," now that the bird had transfered a drop or so of the water in it, and a few molecules of the pollutant it contained, into the next state? The bird could easily have splashed in a stream while it was there, and gotten some microscopic amount of the pollutant into that stream!

If you think that's far-fetched, I can show you real cases that are just as ridiculous--but that doesn't mean some court won't buy the sophistry.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 46
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 8:09:26 PM

The more I pored over the Congressional Record, old law review articles, books, etc., in some sub-basement of the library, the more I realized what a political nature these laws had. As with CERCLA, the CWA was as much a creature of emotion and highly colored (and inaccurate) news stories, as it was a reasoned response to a problem everyone acknowledged.


If you were proposing a more rational rewrite that would achieve the reasonable ends of protecting the property rights of third parties (including future generations), I'd be right the with you. But that's not what you're doing. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater and being just as political about it as those you decry.

I for one would love to see a positive application of your hard-won expertise toward reasonable reform.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 47
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 8:50:10 PM
I don't know how I'm being political, at all. I'm opposed to the abuse of government power--which is exactly what all this is. I'm not a conservative because I hope to gain some favor from some captain of industry--I don't know any. It's simple. All these seemingly noble undertakings by the federal government pave the way to tyranny, and that's more than enough reason for me to hate them.

They are insults to a great country and its unique, beautiful Constitution, usually cooked up by sorry third-raters who are addicted to meddling in other people's lives. To them, it hardly matters *what* they're doing, as long as they're doing *something.* It's the fascist urge to act, for the sake of action. It has no place in America, and I mean to fight it in any way I can. I'll feel slightly better after the lying Marxist who's doing all he can--purposely--to wreck this country and sell it out to its enemies, is crippled next fall.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 48
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 9:02:07 PM

I'm opposed to the abuse of government power--which is exactly what all this is.


No not all. That statement and the dismissive attitude behind it is exactly where your politics lies to you.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 49
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/8/2009 11:16:53 PM
^^^^I guess we just disagree on this. You can call it politics if you want, although I don't usually use that term to describe someone's convictions about the proper role of government. I was giving my conclusion about federal environmental laws, from what I know about them, and the constitutional authority (or lack of it) for them.

You can also call my condemnation of what I see as a gross and dangerous abuse of power "dismissive," if you want. If by that you mean I'm dismissing its legitimacy, you're right. Some environmental law is desirable, but today states could do most of the job. And where rivers run through more than one state, air pollutants cross state lines, or harbors, or tourism, or fisheries are involved, there probably needs to be some federal regulation.

But what has developed during the last forty years is a boondoggle that continues to funnel billions of dollars down a rathole. It's also an arrogant power grab by some very undemocratic people. I think a lot of what's done in the name of the environment is unconstitutional. I guess you know that after the first few years of the Clean Air and Water Acts, Congress was forced to make major revisions to the way they were to be enforced, because EPA wasn't able to do the job. So they turned to the "viceroy" system used today, in which the states develop their own plans to enforce these Acts.

After EPA is satisfied that a state's plan will carry out the purpose of the Act, the state takes over enforcement of it. If it falls down on the job, EPA can cut off related federal funds (e.g. freeway funds for failure to enforce the CAA.) In an extreme case, it can even reassume enforcement authority. Nothing like Congress delegating its power to tax and spend to unelected bureaucrats in an administrative agency, so they can use the threat of withholding federal funds to coerce any recalcitrant state into enforcing federal law. How American that is!

Until the mid-1930's, the Court struck down stratagems like that as illegal delegations of Congress' authority. It did that three times just in 1935. But these days, the Court calls that pitch a strike--even though it's nowhere near the strike zone. That's the sort of central control, helped along by a friendly court, that statists dream of.

How does it serve individual liberties to give unelected and unknown functionaries authority to make decisions that directly affect our lives? What can you do if they treat you unfairly? Go before an administrative law judge who works for them? No one can sue them, because they have sovereign immunity. At best, you might get a writ or an injunction against them, after you'd spent a small fortune defending your rights. Yet you seem to disregard the danger of giving these people this kind of unchecked power.

You're right that the Commerce Clause is the hook the representatives who write these laws hang them on. For sixty years, between the mid-'30's and the mid-'90's, the Court decisions on the Commerce Clause--and I've read all the important ones--broadened the federal government's reach until it covered just about everything. Wickard v. Filburn is sometimes cited as the high-water mark, but there were plenty of others. In doing this, the Court also pretty much killed off the 10th Amendment.

Things began to change in the 1990's, but it's not clear if the change will last. The Court resuscitated the 10th Am. in New York v. U.S. in 1992 (federal law requiring state to take title to radioactive waste violated 10th Am.) In U.S. v. Lopez, the Court held in 1995 that because possessing a gun in a school zone did not substantially affect interstate commerce, the Commerce Clause did not authorize a federal law prohibiting any such possession.

In 1995, the Court held in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida that the (Indian) Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to abrogate a state's sovereignty. And in 1997, in Printz v. U.S., the Court held that the U.S. had no authority to enlist states to enforce the Brady Act by requiring their chief law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun buyers. The way EPA gets around this problem is by using Congress' power to spend, which they have no legitimate claim to, as a club to make states do what they say. As an administrative agency, it can't directly force states, by law, to do anything. And that keeps it from running afoul of the Constitution, like the laws did in the cases I mentioned.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 50
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/9/2009 7:05:35 AM

How would you define a government abuse of power, Ace?


To me, abuse of power is any exercise of authority or use of force that is contrary to the furtherance of a legitimate political aim. What aims are legitimate? The protection of individual rights, equal treatment under law and custom, equal access to public accommodations, and equal opportunity for representation in decisions whose outcome would materially affect an individual's livelihood, property values, or future prospects.

Any government action that effectively denies an individual's right to due process or equal representation in material decisions, is, in my view, an abuse of power. Any government policy that provides protection to private actions that have those same effects is, in my mind, a potential abuse of government power as well.

I realize that my view is unusual and that it implies that many decisions made by corporate boards behind closed doors could be construed as abuses of power.

For example, the decision to dump the coal tailings in the river, ruining the estuaries downstream, without taking the costs to the fishermen and others into consideration, is simply an abuse of power. They do it because they can, and because the local politicians go along with it, even though the costs to the public interest will be paid for generations to come.

In my view, broader representation and greater accountability leads to a stronger competitive position in the long run, not a weaker one.

Match: Holding to a doctrine without a willingness to reconsider, and a desire to impose it on others who disagree, is the very essence of political abuse. Isn't that what gripes you so badly about statists? To what extent is your gripe with them about their willingness to impose their views by force, and to what extent is it that the things they want to impose differ from the things you would prefer to impose?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 51
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/9/2009 9:36:06 AM
^^^^What do you mean by "the things I would prefer to impose?" I wasn't aware I'd said the U.S. should impose anything on us. Only states have police power, and they can regulate the people who live there according to their laws--provided those laws don't conflict with any valid U.S. law, treaty, or the U.S. Constitution, or extend protections too much greater than the Constitution's. The U.S. has limited and enumerated powers only. The fact that hordes of poorly educated or indoctrinated Americans are now either ignorant of those facts, or don't care about them, makes them not one bit less true.

"Doctrine" usually implies a teaching of some organization. I don't hold to anyone's doctrine. You're coming awfully close to using that very tired ploy--"all I have to do to convince my audience that X's argument is wrong is to say X is a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh mouthpiece." I'm always willing to reconsider my views if someone points me to new information that tends to change things. But most of my political views are not much different from those of the men who drafted the Constitution. The Constitution puts into action a set of beliefs about the proper relationship between the individual and the state that time does not change.

I don't want to impose anything on anyone, except for constitutional laws constitutionally enacted. Since when are my--or anyone's--personal views "the very essence of political abuse?" I really have no idea what you're talking about here. But I don't recall ever characterizing your opinions that way. Does a prosecutor engage in some sort of political abuse by showing the jury how a defendant hasn't told them the truth, in anything he's claimed? The only force I'm in favor of using to further my views is the force of reasoned argument.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 52
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/9/2009 2:59:09 PM

What do you mean by "the things I would prefer to impose?" I wasn't aware I'd said the U.S. should impose anything on us.


The ability of those with the means to trash the property of others with impunity.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 53
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/9/2009 3:01:18 PM
Since when does firmly holding to a conviction and debating that conviction in an open forum constitute "Political abuse"?


When the conviction you hold disregards the facts or the consequences to others whose legitimate rights or interests might be harmed by measures you favor, it's abuse. What else can you call it?

That is exactly what you do call it when it goes against you.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 54
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/9/2009 5:01:20 PM
So merely holding a conviction is abuse? Since when? By whose definition?


Let's get back to cases. Match wants to abolish all federal controls over polluting activity because he thinks they overstep the enumerated powers. I have no problem with his logic. However, his unwillingness to consider the possibility that the federal government might be the only effective agency for curbing pollution is ideological and political. Removing those laws to the detriment of everyone downstream just to satisfy the dictates of his ideology is a position that could be just as abusive as the position others hold that any new development is wrong regardless of its purpose. Stopping positive development to satisfy their ideology would also be an abuse of political power.

He says that the current laws are irrational, but that is exactly what you get when you make compromises between two extreme viewpoints engaged in a political struggle. His solution is to toss them all out and leave the public at risk of being unprotected. That is a political and polarized position that places his view above the general welfare that the Constitution is supposed to protect. The tortured reasoning used to justify the bad compromises that nevertheless leave us protected do lead to the inefficiencies he complains about. I grant him that. But just as socialism is no solution to the undue concentration of wealth and power that industrial production creates when left unchecked, removing all checks on industrial power is no solution to the problem of inefficiency.

An unwillingness to strike a workable balance between competing interests for the sake of an ideological position is the essence of a politicized viewpoint. It doesn't matter to me whether you (or I) agree with that viewpoint or not. It is what it is.

To get back on topic: There is something very selfish about this weddedness we all have to being "right." It is so easy to see it in "those people," who are so damned mixed up. It is very difficult to see it in ourselves. But the young people see it in all of us and look askance at all of our pronouncements because of it. Or at least, I hope they do. It would far far worse if they didn't.

Enough for now. I yield.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 55
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/9/2009 6:31:00 PM
California has its own EPA, as do the other states. It has divisions for air, water, solid waste, pesticides, etc., and each one of these manages regional and local bodies. Here, their standards have often been stricter than the USEPA's. The USEPA loves that, because it can then pressure Congress to revise the laws to allow it to publish new regulations that follow California's standards.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 56
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 6:55:04 AM

So what would be wrong with backing up and *proving* that a policy mistake has had terrible repercussions. I'm thinking that there would be nothing wrong or unpatriotic at all with correcting errors, such as, ditching the EPA.


I have no problem with examining any policy, and if it's mistaken, correcting it. But what you fail to consider is that ditching the EPA might be just as bad a mistake or worse, in the opposite direction.

Is it that you fail to consider that possibility, which would be simple ignorance, or that you _refuse_ to consider it? Match could make a positive difference by applying his expertise and insightful mind toward rationaizing the laws toward the legitimate goals of protecting the public from polluters. However, he refuses to do so on the basis of his politics. What is your reason?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 57
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 11:52:52 AM
If what you say is true, if ditching the EPA might just be a mistake or "worse," please explain to me how the country survived at all from its birth to 1970 without the EPA.


Well, if you've ever been through the rust belt, you'd know what a pit it is. I think it was when that big river in Pennsylvania caught fire, when Love Canal made the headlines, when Three Mile Island started to melt down, and when your hero Ronnie quoth "If you've seen one Redwood you've seen 'em all," that people began to wake up to the fact that we are entirely capable of fouling our own nest and doing irreparable harm to the ecological systems that ultimately support us. Or do you think that food comes out of the ground?

Well, in fact, it currently does. Every calorie of food in the standard American diet embodies 10 calories of fossil fuel from fertilizers, pesticides, and transportation. When oil supplies run low, your kids and/or grandkids are liable to go hungry.

The only difference between kids today and us is that they rely on the electronic gagdets in the same way that we rely on internal combustion engines.
 Gogetter56
Joined: 9/27/2008
Msg: 58
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 12:14:41 PM
ACE, the end does not justify the means, especially when it comes to the environment as well as many other issues.

I think this current generation will do just fine once they begin to realize that yes, it does take all that and no I am not entitled to the American Dream, I am simply allowed to pursue it and I am willing to do whatever it takes, including scale down to live within my means, to survive before depending on someone else.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 12:40:35 PM
A couple points about that quote from Mr. Ruckelshaus:

To support his claim that "the federal role was fairly peripheral," and that "there was really no overall federal enforcement to speak of," he only mentions one federal water law and one memorable official--as if that was it. He never mentions either the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 or the Clean Water Act of 1948, both of which were in effect in the late '60's. Ruckelshaus was a fine lawyer--but what he says on this is misleading. (Sort of surprising, considering that he went to the same famous school as President Obama, who *never* says anything misleading.)

His "race to the bottom" claim about state laws may have been true in some states, but why was that usually anyone's business except their own? Their residents were closer than anyone else to whatever problems existed, and they evidently accepted the situation. Maybe having a job was more important to most of them than eliminating every trace of pollution. But then, why should they be able to decide for themselves? That argument also ignores the fact tourism and recreation are also important industries in many states--Hawaii, California, Florida, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Virginia, and Arizona are obvious examples, and there are many more. Just as they do now, all those states had a strong incentive to protect their environments.

His claim that the federal government also had the responsibility to delegate back to the states the administration of the various . . . programs" is not accurate. Congress didn't make states responsible for enforcing federal laws out of any innate love of federalism, or any sense of "responsibility" for respecting their rights. If that had been the case, it never would have enacted these laws in the first place.

Congress relied on the states to enforce its environmental laws because it realized that EPA couldn't do the job itself. And that's where another type of delegation--which Mr. Ruckelshaus didn't mention--came in. To make this whole coercive scheme work without blatantly violating the 10th Amendment, Congress had to delegate its spending power to EPA . But it's highly debatable whether that delegation is constitutional, either.

Mr. Ruckelshaus claim that the "gorilla"--i.e. the federal coercion of the states he seems to approve of--was the fact EPA "could assume control if the state authorities proved too weak or inept to curb local polluters" is ridiculous. In all its history, EPA's only done that a couple times. The reason is obvious--EPA can't run these programs by itself, and its administrators know it. As I said, the real "gorilla" is the threat to cut off money from Washington.

Ruckelshaus was giving the party line in his quote. But he was a pretty benign, reasonable EPA administrator, compared to what we've seen since.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 60
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 4:00:36 PM

Never seen a baby boomer walking around with an internal combustion engine strapped to their ear.


That's 'cause don't walk or take public transit. We all drive one to a car.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 61
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 4:01:35 PM

I think this current generation will do just fine once they begin to realize that yes, it does take all that and no I am not entitled to the American Dream, I am simply allowed to pursue it and I am willing to do whatever it takes, including scale down to live within my means, to survive before depending on someone else.


I think so too.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 62
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/10/2009 7:25:32 PM
Skooch! Dude! So right on!

Could it really be that _we've_ become the older generation? Archaic and hopelessly out of touch?

Nah, never!!!!!
 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 63
view profile
History
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 12/20/2009 6:13:30 PM
The subject has vered way off topic

This is the topic - stick to it.


Okay, I'm 21 as of this year. Is it just me, or does it feel like the generations have gotten more immature as the years go by. I'm not exactly the oldest and wisest of them all myself, but I have a surprisingly large book of wisdom located in my brain. It just baffles me at how different the people are now from 10, 20 years ago. Everything feels a lot more rushed. People back in the day grew up together, married someone they knew, and called it a life. Or met someone, befriended one another, and if were serious, usually got married and stayed together. It seems now that guys and girls alike are more prone to cheating on each other. I'm sure that if I looked up statistics, I'd find that people date more people in their lifetime now than they used to before. I feel like my generation of people is just not willing to work for their relationships, and then complain about how they can't find anyone. Stupid arguments over nothing. And when they have disagreements the first thought is, we should break up, or get divorced because we don't agree on everything. It's because they either didn't take the time out to get to know the person well enough before they started dating them, or just aren't willing to talk about things that they disagree about and come to some type of understanding about things. It makes me angry looking at the world today sometimes. But I know there's nothing I can do. But it's always been a thought on my mind, and I wanted to know other peoples opinions about it. I feel like I'm watching the world slowly drag itself down into oblivion sometimes. What are some of you Ladies and Gentlemans thoughts out there, I am VERY interested in knowing.


Thread Rolled Back



 mamasboy069
Joined: 11/6/2012
Msg: 64
What is wrong this generation of people?
Posted: 3/31/2013 9:55:14 AM
i think the women r totally confused with there roles as women,an men have been beat down by the liberal attitudes,wen u get outta ca this changes somewhat,but being single in ca is a curse,because of the shortage of single women an the now gay thing goin round the cntry an of course the illegals pouring in onna daily basis,that all want the freebies,ca is overwhelmed with illegals from every where,the younger generation has been taught thru public sewer pipe schools to accept everyone an anything.......if allowed to continue all ur borders language an culture will b gone.







Happy Easter
hows that hope an change workinout 4 u
Show ALL Forums  > California  > What is wrong this generation of people?