Best
39 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    I know one thing. Since Obama has been in office my household income has been cut in half. We survive with a couple of extras but not much after that. I do not see where people are wealthier at all.
  • #24
    !
    Outsourcing of this nation's jobs began back in the early 70's. It had reached a point of dire concern long before today and Perot warned the nation about 'that sucking sound' of jobs and standard of life leaving this nation.

    People are wealthier where our jobs and manufacturing bases have gone. It should be obvious to you that those with extreme wealth thought America had far too expansive a middle class and not nearly enough people living in harsh poverty.

    COMING SOON........ INSOURCING!!! Where communist nations end up owning entire congressional districts, build factories or just take the ones already there AND THEN bring their communist slave laborers here.

    If you've paid attention to immigration done proactively from BOTH SIDES over the last 30 years, it does tend to show that, for money and the people of America be damned, they will sell us to just about any bidder.
  • #6
    !
    "SAYS OBAMA TO HIS SHEEP"
    OH my Oh my! Surely you people don't believe this???????? The Obama propaganda machine is starting to really scare the hell out of me. When someone has this much controll over the media to try and make us believe such untrue shit. Call me crazy but I do believe Satan has arrived!
  • #10
    !
    No matter what the topic some kook seems to find way to twist it in such a way it can be use to attack Obama. ...as if Obama had something to do with the writing of this Op-Ed piece.
  • #16
    !
    @DapperDave Yell well DieaperDave, Theres fools born every minute and you were one of them. If you think for one minute that Iam going to believe that this adminastration isn't capable of twisting findings of others in their favor,you must have lived on another planet for the last 4 years. If our enviroment is getting better its only because all of our plants have either shut down or left the country,not because all of Obamas "Go Green" projects. And tell me this, have you ever seen the media be so kind to a president that has been an absolute disaster? Even the best of presidents got some negative press coverage, but not Obama! Every move he makes is like a God to the media so don't tell me he has no influence on others. Just look how he has exploited the Newtown parents and brainwashed them to get up every morning and relive the death of their children to the media and world just for his agendas when they should be home with their other children grieving. Iam sorry that you are so blind to the fact that this mans only concerns is himself and no one else. You are a dieing breed because most people has figured this man out by now.
  • #20
    !
    @Buckfan4life2 Uh, you are barking up the wrong tree, little fellow. I'm neither a Democrat nor an Obama lover. I merely pointed out the fact that folks like you are constantly trying to tie Obama to anything you take exception with. If you were dining out and found a fly in your soup you would probably leap from your seat and launch into a foaming-at-the-mouth tirade, during which you'd insanely blame Obama for your misfortune. You, I'm afraid, have issues I have neither the inclination, the time or the professional training to help you work through. Have a happy life.
  • #38
    !
    Obama does not own the media machine, the Koch brothers do. Surely you know this. The billionaire industrialists control the message and we all fall for one side or the other. Thinking it's Obama is exactly what one of the sides wants you to think.
  • #15
    !
    nope! i see things getting worst do to too many people. we cannot help the environment by flooding millions of people in every year and not expect bad results on everything.
  • #9
    !
    I am calling BS on this. As the reefs in the ocean continue to dwindle due to pollution, fish populations diving to near extinction the list goes on and on. One only has to watch the garbage scows loaded with acid and toxic material head out of NY harbor as an example of growths misdeeds to nature. I am not a tree hugger but something has got to be done to stop this and the EPA is not the answer
  • #26
    !
    absolutely ! good article. although I'm a conscientious objector I do not celebrate Earth Day myself... but I think the author makes a good point that the EPA can be defunded , and all the employees permanently furloughed..
  • #19
    !
    The is a question of balance and this person sees only one side of the equation. Species extinctions are at least 100 times the background rate. He is dead wrong in his denial of global warming, the Earth is accumulating energy at the rate of 400,000 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs EVERY DAY. Yes economic growth lifts people out of poverty, but only at the expense to something else. Nothing can grow for free, growth always, always, always come at expense to something else. Economic growth places greater pressure on everything it depends on. The Earth is not infinite, it has only so much to give and at a limited rate. Humans currently demand the equivelent of 1.5 Earths to provide for resources and natural recovery of ecosystems. We are screwed.
  • #7
    !
    I wholeheartedly agree with the writer on his biggest specific point: If you want less of something, get the government involved in it. In this case, it's environmental protection. Technology has done more to reduce environmental damage than government has. People, by nature, WANT to be good environmental stewards..IF they can afford it. People who are working their butts off just to provide the bare necessities aren't going to have much time or inclination to worry about the environment. Give people some free time, and the ability to enjoy that free time in the outdoors, and they will develop the desire to live cleaner. The biggest danger I see to the environment today is the reduction in people who are inclined to USE the outdoors. Hunting, fishing, camping (REAL camping, not going to an RV park) are all down per capita. If people lose interest in what the outdoors can provide for them, in recreation and relaxation, not to mention the food hunting and fishing can provide, they are going to lose interest in preservation. The reduction in actual people utilizing the backcountry has allowed the fight to be handled by corporate interests on both side. Now corporate business interests, and corporate environmental interests, duke it out over what is "best"..and the citizens of the United States often lose out altogether in the process.
  • #4
    !
    What a legacy we are leaving for future generations. Global economic crisis, diseases and environmental degradation. Where is the reset button?
  • #39
    !
    'Just a few more days until BOOKSTOCK 2013, in scenic Woodstock, Vermont. This weekend brings a great lineup of readings and events, including a free writing workshop, a huge used book sale, live music on the green, nature walks (and a "Where's Waldo Hunt"), and featuring appearances by Vermont and regional writers, including Galway Kinnell, Donald Hall, Richard Blanco, Sarah Stewart Taylor, Sue Halpern, Howard Coffin, Leda Schubert and so many more.

    On Saturday, I'll be at the Norman Williams Public Library at noon to talk about how Vermont managed to preserve much of its pre-petroleum character in the years since the Interstate arrived--the story that's told in "Greening Vermont," which I co-authored with Elizabeth Courtney. It's the story of 50 years of environmentalism in Vermont, told from the point of view of what the landscape needs from us if our civilization is going to be sustainable. I hope to see some of you there.....' http://bookstockvt.org/zencey-on-saving-vermo...
  • #37
    !
    If economic growth fosters a better natural environment and I know forests are healthier when thinned by man etc., which costs $$$... We are in trouble as we are on brink of worldwide cutbacks.
  • #36
    !
    Regulatory solutions to environmental problems are far less effective than wealth creation, and cost a lot more. The EPA currently enforces more than 154,000 specific regulatory restrictions, for which compliance costs are estimated at $353 billion per year - more than the entire national GDPs of some countries, including Denmark and Thailand.

    Yep, we spend all this $$$ and put up with all the jobs lost due to over bearing green policy, while China, India, Russia put three coal fired power plants on line everyday.

    Makes sense hey?
  • #34
    !
    No, I don't agree with this article. I dispute the premise that the environment is getting healthier and I am not surprised that this fairy tale originates from an organization called the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
  • #32
    !
    The environment is getting prettier, but not better.

    It's the things that we don't talk about much that are the most dangerous.

    Water is a mixture of hormones and antibiotics. All the drugs we take end up in water that someone else is drinking.

    Is it any wonder that pollution during fetal development is causing a lot of autism, gender disorders, and other chronic psychological and physical diseases in children?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/042...
  • #30
    !
    "Regulatory solutions to environmental problems are far less effective than wealth creation, and cost a lot more."
    This article clearly has an agenda. This sentence implies that these two goals are mutually exclusive.
    If it wasn't for big government subsidies there are a lot of cases where the environment is harmed where the market wouldnt have been otherwise.
    And whether its here because of government or just the market these pollutants go into our air and water and effect human health.
    There are extremists on both sides of the environmental issue, but we shouldn't consider it an either/or proposition. Wealth-creation is good and targeted developmental projects in developing countries need to get going so that in the future there is no such thing as a developing country anymore. But that doesn't mean there don't have to be certain regulations particularly to protect communities from pollution.
  • #22
    !
    I have problems with studies like this. They are total speculation without a lot of science involved. Look back in history when the industrial revolution started, the rich propagated the expansions which all agreed hurt the ecology. Now we decide to take a differing view and pat the rich on the back for saving the economy. EPA is what forced the changes that caused many things to change, some for the good, others for the bad. This started around Nixon's time in office and has gained momentum ever since. It really took off when Bruce Babbit became head of the EPA and wrote some sweeping changes into our regulations, cost the rich millions to comply and closed down many areas of the wilderness areas, stopped the cutting of trees and totally changing our use of the wildness areas. So this story is a good story based on a fantasy type logic. Like many other fantasy reports regarding government accomplishments.
  • R Load more comments...
Post