Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Chet Ruminski Wrote:Yes Chet, I completely agree with you. But what do you propose to be able to change such; poor people only can vote and for the rest they have to keep their mouth shut. No one asks such decisions if the the poor or the consumer agrees.
Dutch Wrote: Dutch, My motivation is injustice. The most injustice falls upon those with the least representation. That happens to be the poor. The poor by virtue of their economics are inordinately abused by their lack of representation in the unique situations. They suffer abuse because of inordinate punishments that others do not receive because of their economic standings. They are further neglected by a passive aggressive attitude brought on by people blaming the poor for being poor. Poor people. Suffer directly for all the charges for reconnection fees and late fees. They get these fees because they are poor and have problems paying their bills. They get excessively abusive charges because they have no representation. Indirectly they suffer because all of the environmental legislation that causes their cost of living to go up. Consequently when prices go up to restrict consumption the overall majority of people who reduce consumption are the poor. So the bulk of laws that restrict consumption is born solely by the poor. In talking about corruption and its cost it has to be remembered that only the poor suffer directly. They have no discretionary money to absorb punitive pricing so they simply have to do without. People that have money don't have to do without anything, they just pay a little more money. A poor person has to reduce the quality of food they purchase in order to buy gasoline to get to work . That is an autrocity that happens daily. There will be no help with anything until a national conscience develops. My personal discussions about this unique burden on the poor ends up countered by " they'll adjust". An example of equal sharing of the environmental costs would be rationing. But then that falls upon the shoulders of people who have representation.
Chet Ruminski Wrote: There are 100 million automobile main batteries sold each year. Just recently the price of a battery rose $30. That is a 3 billion dollar windfall due to EPA regulations shutting down the Doe Run plant. It is hard to imagine that somebody could not be influenced by the end receivers of that 3 billion dollar windfall. That now is starting to bring my attention to all the laws that shut down US plants that benifitted other plants. That includes not only US plants in compliance but also foreign plants whether in compliance or not. Is the EPA staffed by the only 100% honest people in the world? Has no attempt been made to sway EPA rulings and has any ruling been subjective ? Chet, you should know by now that we live in a corrupt country; anything and everything can be bought including our politicians.
Dutch, That's a tough one and causes me too look at myself. When I was active I remember very well a conversation I had with a coal mine superintendent about scrubbers for power company smokestacks. He said if " if you guys don't stop we'll shut the ###### mines down". I replied " then shut the ##### mines down. Well we didn't and they did. 500,000 coal miners lost their jobs. Initially because of the Union 500,000 poorly educated coal miners had jobs that were at the top of the scale in wages in the country. Then because of the Union 500,000 coal miners lost their jobs. Subsequent to that to that to make matters worse an 11 million dollar government investigation into the cause of acid rain killing lakes concluded . That investigation headed by Krug concluded that runoff waters from the surrounding hills contained the killing acid from decaying trees and vegetation. That came out just when the 11 billion dollar clean air bill was introduced in 1991. Krug was in opposition to the 11 billion dollar establishment bill. His report was buried and he was strategically exiled. So not only did we cause 500,000 coal miners to lose their jobs, we did it because of a lie. I quit everything and moved to FL. I rationalized it was for the greater good. Now I see that some of it might have been for the greater good but most of it was to satisfy egos. As I watched the EPA continually shut businesses down and or forcing them overseas I started to be bothered by the enequity of shutting our businesses down but still enjoying the benefits by using products from polluters across the ocean. That happens across all of the industries in the USA. Red lobster serves popcorn shrimp that is imported because it is illegal to catch shrimp that small in USA waters. Lot of things are wrong including the pervasive abuse of the poor. I don't have an answer yet but I am racking my mind to make up for all the wrong done for all the wrong reasons.
Here is the Krug vs EPA link: employees.oneonta.edu/blechmjb/jbpages/...