In theory, which group would be better at reducing the power of lobbying: Tea Party or Progressives?

Please point out where I said there should be no regulations at all???? Over regulation is a problem though. It can cripple small business. You point to toxic waste yet I bet you have no idea how the EPA actually works. They are so far behind in the methods they approve for testing it is totally ridiculous. Science and technology has left the EPA in the dust and they still only approve testing methods from the 70's, 80's, and 90's when much more accurate methods and analyzers have been developed. I could debate point by point but it is useless to debate liberals with their tunnel vision.

 

Would a GOP Congress bring the EPA up to the latest capabilities?

 

What on earth are you talking about? They hate regulation. Large companies for republican and vote for deregulation. Of finance, or anti-trust laws, they want less environmental laws, less trade restrictions, let's worker safety, less red-tape, less legal compliance, less everything.

To try to twist it 180 degrees - are you crazy?

 

I have no idea but I believe they would curb some of the ridiculous over regulation. I seriously hope they would not use the EPA as a means to try to force green technology that has not been invented yet. If the left had their way, we would quit using all fossil fuels. The problem is we get much more from fossil fuels that just "energy" (gasoline,oil,diesel, jet fuel, natural gas, etc...). Do you realize how much is created from the by-products of fossil fuels being turned into energy???? Synthetic rubber, plastics, Styrofoam, glues, etc.. the list goes on and on. If we eliminated fossil fuels today, where would we get these things we have become dependent on?? I know rubber grows in trees but natural rubber is only one part of a tire. Synthetic rubber has allowed the industry to create 60,000 + mile tires. Not to mention that we use all the natural rubber that is created right now so much so that a "synthetic" natural rubber had to be created to offset the demand. Technology will have to go beyond just creating "green" energy. They will have develop ways to create a lot of things we have come dependent on like rubber and plastic without the fossil fuel leftover that are used to create them now.

 

The tea party opened the doors for massive money in politics. That was spearheaded by Citizens United. How can this thread even be open for debate???????

 

He is not crazy, he has another disease starts with a S.

 

Publicly financed elections.

Problems solved.

 

The highest and best use of hydrocarbons is not burning them but using them in recyclable ways since they are finite and we hope human beings are around for millenia. But I don't think the greeniest greens think it will be less than 50 years before the world changes to renewable energy sources to replace fossil fuels. I think your stated position is irrationally paranoid. That being said it takes imposed economic incentives to speed up the desired innovation. Just left to pure market forces the cheaper, short-sighted route would be extended to the point of crisis, i.e. climate change where the costs are hidden, passive and delayed, political where source nations dictate policies, and economic where wealth and influence by fossil fuel providers becomes pervasive and policies can no longer be changed like the Koch brothers are attempting.

The defining notion of capitalism is short-term self-interest, profits for me today. That has to mitigated and directed for the longer term interest of the general public. But, certainly not stopped altogether or even reduced to a unmotivated malaise .... that's the challenge of democratic socialism versus socialism. No one wants the government owning the means of production in the US, but we have to temper capitalism to serve the nation not exploit it.

That's why progressivism would better deal with lobbyist than Laissez-faire Tea party types.