Obama set to push ‘big bang’ reform package

[IAMX 3,055]

Thought? You don't really 'do' thinking Charles. Try again.

I'd have liked to see an explanation of the article to at least show he reads what he posts.

[mawilson 2,133]

It'll be worth it just to hear the conservatives squeal like a bunch of little piggies.

That would be the taxpayer, A.J. Squealing for years to come.

[NickD 203]

Are you saying the EPA is not doing it's job?

"The EPA was proposed by President Richard Nixon and began operation on December 2, 1970, when it was passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon, and has since been chiefly responsible for the environmental policy of the United States.[3] It is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the President of the United States. The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the Administrator is normally given cabinet rank. The current Administrator (as of 2007) is Stephen L. Johnson, and the current Deputy Administrator is Marcus Peacock. The agency has approximately 18,000 full-time employees."

For vehicles, maximum efficiency occurs when the air fuel mixture produces the greatest amount of carbon dioxide, if lower, HC's are pumped into the air.

"The Supreme Court ruled on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA has the authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in automobile emissions, stating that "greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act capacious definition of air pollutant." The court also stated that the EPA must regulate in this area unless it is able to provide a scientific reason for not doing so."

One of the first moves was to remove lead from gasoline, agree highly with this as lead in the air entering the blood stream through the lungs and crossing the into the brain makes people for lack of a better word, crazy and aggressive. A reasonable explanation for the leaders in the past and what we have today. Lead was added to reduce combustion chamber temperatures that would melt the interior of the engine. Next in line are HC's that are cancerous, but rather then improve the engines, and after the fact device was mandatory on all vehicles called the catalytic converter, even an air pump was added pumping air into the cat. So rather than using the gas to power the engine, had a fire hazard under your seats. With high sulfur content fuels imported from the Middle East, this was pumping sulphuric acid into the air. Don't have to explain the damage that caused to the human respiratory system, but this was the law.

Further on fuel injection, the cheapest kind had to be implemented with an oxygen sensor checking for minimum oxygen in the exhaust pipe, thing is, if one spark plug or injector was leaking or blocked, that would severely lean the fuel to the other cylinders so your car would barely run at all and even ruin the engine.

But the bottom line with the EPA was always to use gasoline, a very dirty fuel and to play games at the consumers expense in a lost attempt to make vehicles run cleaner, who exactly is running the EPA? The EPA has a very poor record of developing new technology and even retarding technology, the only solutions is to either fine, or simply move your plant out of this country and pollute someplace else. That is where we are today. Have to say that Gary, IN sure has been cleaned up, for flying was always IFR with all different colors of smoke. The EPA with their big budget has never promoted alternate sources of energy nor cures to help our industries out, I would give them an F- for a grade, and if they did cure one problem, created a dozen more.

But it is run by politicians that sucked in way too much lead so what can you expect?

Find it very ironic that I can walk the aisles of Wal-Mart and see the shelves loaded with chemicals that if the EPA found in your plant, you would be fined, do not be caught with a can of WD-40 in your plant and certainly not hair sprays. In running a plant, the EPA was never helpful, and why should they be? They get their paychecks, pretty good ones at that from the taxpayer and get them whether they work or not, where in a plant, the only way you get money is producing it at a competitive price. So rather than helping our plants solve problems while still making a profit, either shut them down or fined them out of business. This certainly isn't good cooperation between our government and the citizens that attempt to earn the money to pay their paychecks.

Ironically, Japan has the strictest automobile emissions laws in the world, but their cities are loaded with our smokestacks using the same old technology, but getting rich at it while we are getting poor. in the last 14 years, that is being moved to China. So where have problems been solved? And the IRS cannot tax bucks that leave this country.

Another really bad joke was with refrigerants, EPA says they all must be recovered and properly disposed of, but not a single law to the manufacturers to take measures to prevent loss or refrigerants that are used extensively in air conditioning and in refrigeration. They put the entire burden on the repair guy, but by the time he sees this equipment, the refrigerants have long leaked out into the atmosphere.

Yet another killer agency is the IRS making many smaller businesses assess inventory at the retail value, this is unbelievable, the inventory is counted as profit that you haven't even earned yet and how can you pay your bills with inventory? You need cash, this act put thousands of smaller businesses out of business. But why should our leaders care? They just charge more taxes to live their very comfortable lives.

The only solution to the automobile is to quit burning gasoline, it's a very dirty fuel, GM and Exxon did their share to buy up and eliminate public transportation to sell more cars and gas, that was done in the 60's, today we are paying the price. Our real idiots have been those that are running this country, not intentional, they just sucked in way too much lead.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

too late on the edit, so here it is

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the U.S. emissions.[44] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[45] Various predictions see China overtaking the U.S. in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[46][47][48] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[49][50][51]

so because china, a way less developed country than the usa, produces pollution it isn't important to invest in renewable energy sources in the usa? nice logic. luckily for everyone you aren't running the country.

was there some reason why you ignored that? leading by example isn't important? ignoring the kyoto protocol is fine? like i said, we are all lucky that you aren't running the country.

is there a reason why you're ignoring the fact that china is a major polluter? and spare me the insults, will ya?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It'll be worth it just to hear the conservatives squeal like a bunch of little piggies.

hehe. i don't see what they are concerned about. improving the country is bad?

There is nothing more threatening to the conservative ideology than a liberal President who actually enacts a liberal agenda.

I just hope that Obama thinks big. He's got a mandate and political capital. He needs to use the former and invest the latter.

Ditto!

Kick the conservatives to the curb. Show them no quarter.

If that's what will happen. There are rumblings that Obama's administration is going to be a lot more centrist than people think and that the "most liberal senator ever" stuff was simply a scare tactic to stop people voting for him.

[Teacher Mark 53]

It'll be worth it just to hear the conservatives squeal like a bunch of little piggies.

[sj5 4]

It will make Democrat to work more on How to Tax Rich People if my husband planning on/off employment plan. Edited November 10, 2008 by SJ

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

[sj5 4]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

What do you think?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

What do you think?

I think he might be.

[sj5 4]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

What do you think?

I think he might be.

It's time for you to send CIA, FBI and other agencies for investigation.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

how did you arrive at that question?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

What do you think?

I think he might be.

It's time for you to send CIA, FBI and other agencies for investigation.

They read this forum. They've seen how much you love bin Laden. They're on their way.

[Peikko 1,575]

too late on the edit, so here it is

In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the U.S. emissions.[44] However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.[45] Various predictions see China overtaking the U.S. in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[46][47][48] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[49][50][51]

so because china, a way less developed country than the usa, produces pollution it isn't important to invest in renewable energy sources in the usa? nice logic. luckily for everyone you aren't running the country.

was there some reason why you ignored that? leading by example isn't important? ignoring the kyoto protocol is fine? like i said, we are all lucky that you aren't running the country.

is there a reason why you're ignoring the fact that china is a major polluter? and spare me the insults, will ya?

China has been going 'green' for the past 3 or 4 years. Yes, it's still a polluter but interestingly, they take the idea of reducing emissions very seriously. If you followed the ball bearings, as per my recommendation, you would know this.

[sj5 4]

It'll make Democrast squels more if my husband planning on and off employment plan.

Is your husband a terrorist?

What do you think?

I think he might be.

It's time for you to send CIA, FBI and other agencies for investigation.

They read this forum. They've seen how much you love bin Laden. They're on their way.

Does it make my husband terrorist if I say "Bin Laden is handsome?" are you jealous when I didn't make compliment about you? Post your picture.. you'll see what I think about you?

If I hate Tom Cruise, should I say ugly man because I don't like him?

Edited November 10, 2008 by SJ