Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

House Votes To Curb EPA Rule

Measure appears to have little chance in Senate

March 7, 2014

WHEELING — The House of Representatives voted Thursday to stall U.....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(44)

swingdog

Mar-10-14 1:14 PM

dah, I did not say that I expected you not to take advantage of the amazingly cheap labor and low production costs in China. Obviously, many other made the same decision - but it was a DECISION - that you are responsible for making. You did have a choice, and you took the one that made you more money. Those cheap costs came at a price that you did not have to deal with at the time. That was not your concern. But please do not tell us that the government forced you to do it. At the very least take responsibility for your own actions.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-10-14 1:11 PM

"More than 420 companies including Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical and Stryker signed on to a letter asking the U.S. Congress to repeal a planned 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices. The tax could cost $20 billion a year and is set to take effect in 2013 as part of broad health care reform package passed last year.

“The tax is already having an adverse impact on R&D investment and job creation, jeopardizing the U.S. global leadership position in medical device innovation,” said the letter."

8/1/2011 :Boston Scientific Corp. said yesterday that it plans to eliminate 1,200 to 1,400 jobs worldwide during the next 2 1/2 years to free money for new investments, the Natick medical device maker’s second major round of cuts since last year.

They are hiring 1,000 in China!

Thanks Obamacare

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-10-14 7:37 AM

Dog 10 cents versus $5 an hour at the time and cheap shipping rates there was NO comparison, only stupidity if you did not.

Today it is not driven so much by price as "Hassle" by the Federal State and local governments.

Obamacare is costing jobs and making outsourcing look better, tons of regulation make outsourcing look more attractive, even if the cost is close.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-09-14 6:49 PM

"When I started there the labor rates were 10 cents a DAY!" dah.

What can I say? You make my case for me! In other words, you made a choice.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-09-14 5:20 PM

slumdog I have been manufacturing in China for 30 years, YOU?

When I started there the labor rates were 10 cents a DAY! They are about 1.50 to $3 an hour now. Add up the shipping costs and customs fees and it is getting more difficult to justify offshore manufacturing on PRICE alone.

With labor shortage in the China (YES labor SHORTAGE) the net costs (landed) will likely hit parity with the US about 2018, since the salaries are going up about 20% per year.

30 years ago there used to be a lot of brass manufacturers in the USA.

EPA Regulations are so tough they are virtually ALL gone.

You sit in 26003 babbling shat you know nothing about.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-09-14 4:13 PM

dah, slow down. Take a deep breath and relax. You are hyperventilating. Stop waving your arms and catch your breath.

The outsourcing of American manufacturing began several decades ago, because U.S. companies realized they could make a bigger profit by having dirt cheap labor and not have to worry about worker safety and pollution controls. The governments in India, Pakistan, China, etc. were happy to get the business despite the fact that it devastated the environment and created enormous health impacts. The toxins that now permeate the air, water and ground of those countries will continue to negatively affect both the natural environment and human health for centuries to come. To say that the businesses profiting from this system have no choice is ridiculous. Of course they have a choice, and they cannot excuse their choice by saying the government forced them to pull their operations out of the U.S. and move them to India, China or Pakistan.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-09-14 11:38 AM

Dog, what is patently ridiculous is your statement:

"The businesses have a choice - and they have made theirs in favor of profits over protection."

What is the source of THAT?

Tell us, do electrical appliances made in China not have to meet the same safety standards of UL,CSA, CE, NEC, etc that American made products sold here do??

Do all of the cell phones made in China and Asia NOT meet the FCC requirements for radiation emissions???

Do Kia and Hyundai cars not meet US safety standards?

Don't be silly.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WVEXPAT

Mar-09-14 8:32 AM

There's not a whole lot we can do to changes wages overseas, but we do have a weapon to lower mfg costs here that Asian markets/EU/India DON'T have. Cheap natural gas! Shale gas is giving us a competitive advantage, yet those who decry the overseas jobs scenario are the same critics of natural gas.

You can't have it both ways! "Shale spurs manufacturing Cheaper natural gas is boosting the American economy, especially manufacturing" ( Pittsburgh Post Gazette)

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 8:02 PM

Cont'd

And his base salary accounts for just 12 percent of his total compensation last year; most of what was paid to Johnson last year came from performance incentives of nearly $2.6 million and deferred compensation payments of $2.06 million, ACCORDING TO THE CHATTANOOGA TIMES FREE PRESS.

Source: Reason Foundation 1/9/14

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 8:01 PM

You think the president of the United States—our country’s chief executive officer and commander-in-chief—is the most highly-compensated federal employee, you would be wrong…by a long shot. While the president is paid an annual salary of $400,000—plus over $150,000 in non-taxable spending accounts and perks like free housing—the president’s compensation package pales next to the compensation package of the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Chief Executive Officer Bill Johnson. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) recently disclosed it increased Johnson’s total compensation by nearly 50 percent in 2013 to $5.9 million, more than 14 times the president’s salary.

Like other federal employees, Johnson's base salary of $708,000—close to double the president’s salary—was frozen last year under the federal pay freeze but remains a hefty amount by most standards. And his base salary accounts for just 12 percent of his total compensation last year; most of what was paid to

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 7:55 PM

Dog, as to the source of the regulations, it is in the article:

the OMB (Office of Management and Budget).

I took this from an article PRINTED in Forbes:

"New Regulations Batter The Middle Class. Obama Changes The Subject"

by Henry Miller 7/13/2013

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 7:52 PM

OK dog I know I read an early article that said he was paid over $900,000 per year but that article was in error. But CLOSE!

Business Insider:

The EPA’s Highest-Paid Employee Pretended To Be A CIA Agent For 12 Years

On Wednesday the Environmental Protection Agency's highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change will be sentenced after pleading guilty in September to pretending to be a CIA spy working in Pakistan, Michael Isikoff of NBC New reports.

Prosecutors argue that John C. Beale, who defrauded the U.S. government out of nearly $900,000 since 2000, committed a "crime of massive proportion" and deserves to go to prison for at least 30 months."

That says something about HOW POORLY the EPA is run when a top exec is GONE for 18 months and NOBODY REALIZED IT!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-08-14 6:48 PM

Pardon me for questioning your source of information, dah, but you did recently claim that the highest paid EPA official makes over $900,000 per yr. when it was really less than 1/3 that amount.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-08-14 6:42 PM

Source?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 6:11 PM

slumdog is patently an idiot:

"OMB conceded that 2012 was the costliest year ever for compliance with new regulations: With regulatory costs a whopping $19.5 billion, 2012 exceeded the next highest cost year by 57 percent. Susan Dudley puts these numbers into historical context: “By the administration’s own estimates, the rules it issued in FY2012 alone IMPOSED MORE COSTS ON THE ECONOMY THAN ALL THE RULES ISSUED DURING THE ENTIRE FIRST TERMS OF PRESIDENTS BUSH AND CLINTON, COMBINED.”

But here’s the kicker: The administration neglected to report six “economically significant”– impact greater than $100 million – rules, which would have added an additional $2.4 billion in proposed and final rule costs!"

Poor slumdog never can back up his tiny bark with any bite.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-08-14 5:51 PM

"China attracts US companies because the US GOVERNMENT RUNS THEM OUT OF BUSINESS in the USA and THEY HAVE NO CHOICE!" dah.

That is patently ridiculous! The companies that have moved their production facilities to China, India and other Asian nations have done so for one reason - greater profits. Labor costs are a tiny fraction of what is considered a fair wage in the U.S., worker safety requirements are virtually nonexistent, environmental pollution controls are a joke, and U.S. based corporations are taking advantage of these conditions to pump up their bottom line. The businesses have a choice - and they have made theirs in favor of profits over protection. I do not expect them to do otherwise as long as they are not penalized. However, to say that they are "helpless" is silly.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 3:44 PM

slumdog China attracts US companies because the US GOVERNMENT RUNS THEM OUT OF BUSINESS in the USA and THEY HAVE NO CHOICE!

You hypocrites buy those Iphones, Xboxes, Prius, Kia's, and everything else made there yet still ***** about nothing made in America.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 3:41 PM

cowtransplant no "YOU" is the clown who got their butt kicked in CA and had to crawl back to the 50th of 50 states, worst mental and physical health in the USA, to lick your wounds.

YOU did not represent America, just a tiny fraction of freaks who are tolerated BECAUSE we are America.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-08-14 12:14 PM

China and other nations attract U.S. manufacturing businesses because of almost nonexistent controls on environmentally destructive emissions and virtually no concern for worker safety. Imagine attending a football game and not being able to see the players because of thick smog or being told that your children should not play outside due to extreme air pollution that never seems to get better. How about knowing that your mother or father will likely become too sick to work and will die prematurely due to working in a heavily polluted factory. Take the time to look at pictures of the rivers and coastal areas of these nations literally covered in filth and garbage. The guilty parties here are the corporations which exploit these conditions to increase their bottom line - and the government officials who dance to their tune.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

caltransplant

Mar-08-14 12:11 PM

Rat boy, "we" is the American people.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-08-14 12:01 PM

Opps, typo. delete: "and environmentally destructive toxins" Sorry.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-08-14 11:56 AM

dah, in effect you verified my post. Products once made in the U.S. are increasingly made in countries where there are few if any controls on the toxins and environmentally destructive toxins they release on their own people and the environment - and where people have to work for poverty level wages. Yes, that is unfair. However it will not be solved by trying to create conditions that are just as bad here in the U.S.. The way to deal with it is to ban the importation of products where those practices are common. Of course, that means that we will pay more at the checkout counter. We will not "beat them" by becoming one of them.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

daWraith

Mar-08-14 7:31 AM

slumdog what Uncommon has suggested is that the USA is forced to compete in the world with a different set of rules than countries like China and India.

China and India have a combined population of 2.6 Billion, about 9 times that of the USA. Yet they have virtually NONE of the restrictive EPA that the USA does. They are building ONE NEW coal power plant per WEEK between the two countries.

Their government policy is WIN in the world economic competition by using WHATEVER means necessary. Power from coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear... ALL OF THE ABOVE.

So why should the USA cripple its economy to be super green when virtually 5 billion other people in the world are polluting it??

It IS ONE WORLD, is is not, guano brain? The CO2 concentration is the sum of all the nations, not JUST the USA.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BigMike

Mar-08-14 12:15 AM

WVUGEO, Why do you get so many disagrees? It's because you omit one crucial fact and that is: HOW MU8CH DOES IT COST?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

swingdog

Mar-07-14 9:50 PM

"Uncommonsense, You have stated things as they are. By using common sense. Sadly lacking in the masses of the American voters today," log.

Are you saying that the U.S. should use lead, toxic pesticides and other harmful substances in its products? I agree that that products containing these toxins should be banned - and many are - regardless of the place of production. However, the fact that so many items once made in the U.S. now come from outside the country is due to the fact that producers realized that they could get dirt-cheap labor in 3rd world nations where there are virtually no safety regulations and pollution emission standards.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 44 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

EZToUse.com

I am looking for: