EPA Admits that Jobs Don't Matter!!

[youtube:1n7qfia7][/youtube:1n7qfia7]

I think we may have a difference of opinion as to what was portrayed in that video. I have no idea, after watching it, what the economic studies conducted by the EPA do or do not take into account, because the "interrogator" didn't let the EPA official say two words without battering him with lawyer language. I suspect he could have made Henry Ford sound like he never manufactured any cars.

He did repeatedly say that they did not include jobs as the thought behind their regulations.

He repeatedely said they did not directly measure jobs in their economic assessment. But without knowing what they DO measure, as the interrogater tried to prevent the inverviewee from explaining, that is meaningless. Why do you think the questioner tried so hard to prevent the official from elaborating on what WAS measured? Would he have battered him like that unless he was trying to make it appear the way he wanted it to appear?

But if you were too busy cheering on the "prosecuting attorney" you might not have noticed what was really going on. Having grown up in a family infested with lawyers, I am more familiar than I might like to admit with tactics like that.

As you said we would differ as to our interpretation, I saw the man from EPA try to answer more like a Politician than anything else and the questioner pinned him to an answer.

BTW the questioner was Cory Gardner not a defense attorney.

He's a lawyer. Juris Doctorate from the University of Colorado.

Could have told you that even without looking up his biography, though, it's written all over him.

He also has an R beside his name. Could that be why you are so against everything he got the EPA guy to say or not say?

Nmysys wrote: He also has an R beside his name. Could that be why you are so against everything he got the EPA guy to say or not say?

Actually I had no idea who he was when I watched the video. I've heard the name but his face is not familar to me. After watching it again I did see his name was displayed but the first time I wasn't "looking around the room", I was watching his face and mannerisms and listening to his speech. Within 15 seconds it was obvious he was using classic lawyer tactics to shut down and confuse the person he was questioning. As I said in my first post, after watching the whole thing twice, I still have no idea what the EPA does or does not consider as part of an economic assessment, because the questioner did not let him tell us. It could very well be that they do not in any way whatsoever consider jobs as part of their economic assessment, but the VIDEO DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT, it only demonstrated that the questioner was very skilled at shutting down the person he was questioning and driving him in exactly the direction he wanted to. That's what lawyers DO, you know. Or didn't you?

The guy is good at what he does. Like I said, I'll bet he could make Henry Ford look confused as to whether he ever manufactured any cars.

PS: As to the "R" besdie his name, don't project your own partisan outlook on to me. Not everyone looks at the entire world in terms of R or D. I looked at this video with the thought of, does this or does this not support the poster's contention that "The EPA admits that jobs don't matter". I decided that the video does not support that contention, based on the merits of what I saw, not on any preconceived notion having to do with partisan politics. In all fairness, neither does the video contradict your assertion. But more evidence would have to be presented than was in the video to support your contention. At MOST, the evidence shows that the EPA official could not confirm that the issue of jobs are specifically addressed in their economic analysis. That does not confirm they are not considered at all, and it is very, very far from your claim that the EPA says jobs "do not matter".