"Things will get better in Kentucky..."

[Despanan]

So long as by "Better" you mean more people will die of black lung in order to save the coal companies money.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The whole state of Kentucky has been in a downward spiral since it's inception, and the folks there just keep punching themselves in the junk and thinking they like it that way.

[Renatus]

Move to WISCONSIN. All we have here for mining is lead, and there really isn't much of that left anyways due to the sharp decline in demand after people discovered lead poisoning.

[Ben Lahnger]

Kentucky's state slogan should be, "Hey, at least we're not Mississippi!"

[Renatus]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Kentucky's state slogan should be, "Hey, at least we're not Mississippi!"

Eh Mississippi isn't so bad anymore, they found a way to keep westboro away from a soldier's funeral.
http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westbo...ppi-and-loses/

[CptSternn]

After seeing what happens when industries are regulated, it would be a pretty grim future if they removed all regulation.

Just look at the Gulf Of Mexico sure.

Paul is obviously an idiot.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Renatus

Eh Mississippi isn't so bad anymore, they found a way to keep westboro away from a soldier's funeral.
http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westbo...ppi-and-loses/

I saw that, but if you do a bit of Googling the whole story stems from one post on a single forum. Dozens have now copied the story verbatim, but there has been no official confirmation or any evidence to indicate this actually happened, other than an anonymous post on a random forum which has gone viral.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

After seeing what happens when industries are regulated, it would be a pretty grim future if they removed all regulation.

Just look at the Gulf Of Mexico sure.

That's about the worst example you could cite if you were looking to display a model of how government moderation is effective. I mean, the petroleum industry is supposedly regulated.

Besides the comedy of errors that happened prior to the gulf oil spill and the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon that killed 11 men last year, there's this bit of cheery recent news ...

BP is suing the designer of the blowout preventer, claiming it is not effective in preventing blowouts. But while they are trying to recoup a multi-million dollar settlement, they are also applying for and getting approved (along with all other companies in the business) for new drilling applications using that same blowout preventer and safety plans that were drawn up prior to 2009.

They are getting approved - so much for government regulation. (I suspect it's because nobody in Washington wants to deal with voters complaining about the price of gasoline going even higher.)

P.S. - When Rachel Maddow reported on the findings of the independent firm the government asked to assess fault in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, she likened the blowout preventer to a car airbag that functions perfectly except in the specific instance of a car crash. In other words, a blowout preventer works fine in all conditions except for an actual blowout. And this is the industry standard that our government regulators are still giving a pass to, even after these findings.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

That's about the worst example you could cite if you were looking to display a model of how government moderation is effective. I mean, the petroleum industry is supposedly regulated.

That was my point exactly. The oil industry IS regulated, and look at what still happens. Removing all regulation when you see how they skirt the regulation already and cause such damage is a sure recipe for a catastrophe.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

That was my point exactly. The oil industry IS regulated, and look at what still happens. Removing all regulation when you see how they skirt the regulation already and cause such damage is a sure recipe for a catastrophe.

Explain to me the difference between a catastrophe caused by an unregulated industry and a catastrophe caused by a badly regulated industry, please. Because I see no difference, except the latter costs me more money.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Explain to me the difference between a catastrophe caused by an unregulated industry and a catastrophe caused by a badly regulated industry, please. Because I see no difference, except the latter costs me more money.

There is at least a proverbial fig leaf attached to the poor attempt at regulation, which will in turn lead to proper regulation (hopefully).

Then again, after the last oil spill and banking crisis there hasn't been much change in the regulation there...

Your assertion that they should remove all regulation because they can't do it right is like saying remove all seatbelts from cars because people aren't using them.

There needs to be regulation, and it needs to be properly enforced. Just because they are doing a piss poor job at it doesn't mean it should be removed. If anything they should be cracking down even more.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

There is at least a proverbial fig leaf attached to the poor attempt at regulation, which will in turn lead to proper regulation (hopefully).

Then again, after the last oil spill and banking crisis there hasn't been much change in the regulation there...

My point exactly, except it costs the taxpayers more money to get the exactly same, disastrous results.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Your assertion that they should remove all regulation because they can't do it right is like saying remove all seatbelts from cars because people aren't using them.

I said no such thing, and I will ask you now to curb your constant habit of attributing things not said to people you argue with here. You do it all the time and it makes me not want to have a conversation with you.

I was criticizing specific areas of GOVERNMENT regulation. Citing seat-belts is disingenuous because it selectively highlights a separate government regulatory effort we both would agree IS effective. And you just made my point ... that when you originally selected the gulf oil spill disaster, it was one of the worst examples of government regulation you could have chosen.

Also, criticizing something that is broken is not the same as saying it should be done away with.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

There needs to be regulation, and it needs to be properly enforced. Just because they are doing a piss poor job at it doesn't mean it should be removed. If anything they should be cracking down even more.

If they crack down even more (as in the petroleum or financial industries) than they are now, it will still be a zero sum effort. You're suggesting propping up the existing mechanism with a hearty exhortation, "Try harder!" I'm saying they aren't working, and telling them to do a better job won't get it done ... they need to be overhauled/fixed.

The status quo is status whoa!

[CptSternn]

Do you not see that my example is a very good example? Actually, both examples were spot on.

Since you are stuck on this, I'll break out the white board.

1. The US government in many areas of regulation does a piss poor job.

This was my point with the oil spill. An industry with what many would call lax regulation leads to major catastrophes. The Gulf spill was a shining example of this. I didn't think I needed to extrapolate on this.

2. A congressman wants to remove regulation for a similar industry, at least in part.

Even with regulation at the best of times the US government screws it up. Removing protections, even if they are flawed, will undoubtedly lead to even worse catastrophes. Not only that, it will also leave those who are involved in them liability free.

Poor regulation at least means they can make changes and hold people accountable. Removing said protections, even flawed ones will lead to bigger catastrophes where no one will be accountable.

Sure the results will be the same, but right now there is recourse when something happens, as we are seeing.

Your multiple comments about 'saving tax dollars' was what I was then commenting on, since you failed to grasp that with no regulation, sure you save money, but when something goes awry there is no accountability. Bad regulation does lead to the same end, but there is recourse for the tax payers to go after offenders then.

Per my second analogy, removing protection so you can save tax dollars because you think it is going to end up all the same way anyhow can be perfectly displayed with the seatbelt example. If everyone stopped using them should they then stop enforcing the law? It wouldn't make anyone safer, but they could save a few tax dollars.

My analogy was not to demonstrate an industry where regulation was working. If I were to choose a well regulated industry would I have used the Gulf oil spill as an example? More importantly, I didn't choose that industry per-se, I pointed out the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, which was my example and you jumped in attacking me saying that was a very bad example of good regulation. Really? Why would you think I used the Gulf spill as an example of a well regulated industry? I thought it was obvious it was an example of bad regulation I didn't think I needed to follow up with three posts explaining that the BP incident in the Gulf was a catastrophe.

My analogy was apt, you seem to be itching for a conflict in the thread, dunno why. Maybe you should explore the analogy before jumping in with personal attacks next time, eh?

[Ben Lahnger]

Again with the saying I said something I didn't say! I didn't say anything about SAVING tax dollars ... I said it was pointless to WASTE tax dollars to accomplish the same ends as having no regulation. I also said some government regulation works (citing your seat-belt example), and by extraction you can conclude that I think those are tax dollars that are a good investment.

STOP MISQUOTING ME, YOU PUTZ!

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Bad regulation does lead to the same end, but there is recourse for the tax payers to go after offenders then.

You show me how that's working out for the taxpayers with the financial industry or the oil industry and then I'll cede you might have a point. Show me exactly what recourse we have, because there's plenty of ire and indignation throughout my country's population about both those industries, but I don't see any change. Until the people of our land can match the finances and influence of the lobbyists representing both those industries, I think they're going to continue to have the exact type of government regulation THEY WANT.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Again with the saying I said something I didn't say! I didn't say anything about SAVING tax dollars ... I said it was pointless to WASTE tax dollars to accomplish the same ends as having no regulation. I also said some government regulation works (citing your seat-belt example), and by extraction you can conclude that I think those are tax dollars that are a good investment.

STOP MISQUOTING ME, YOU PUTZ!

I am not misquoting you. I'll include your quotes.

Explain to me the difference between a catastrophe caused by an unregulated industry and a catastrophe caused by a badly regulated industry, please. Because I see no difference, except the latter costs me more money.

If they crack down even more (as in the petroleum or financial industries) than they are now, it will still be a zero sum effort.

That sure sounds like you are against regulation. Those are your words, quoted here, since you can't be bothered to look at the previous posts.

You show me how that's working out for the taxpayers with the financial industry or the oil industry and then I'll cede you might have a point. Show me exactly what recourse we have, because there's plenty of ire and indignation throughout my country's population about both those industries, but I don't see any change.

Again, quoting you from above...

BP is suing the designer of the blowout preventer, claiming it is not effective in preventing blowouts. But while they are trying to recoup a multi-million dollar settlement...

The multimillion dollar settlement was with the government over the spill. Sure the regulation sucks, but there was recourse and they are being forced to pay for the spill, at least in part.

Until the people of our land can match the finances and influence of the lobbyists representing both those industries, I think they're going to continue to have the exact type of government regulation THEY WANT.

That is pretty obvious. No one in this thread ever suggested otherwise. The American government is for sale, it always has been. With the passage of the most recently Supreme Court ruling that allows companies to donate as much money as they want to campaigns, it means things will definitely get worse before they get better.

[Ben Lahnger]

Yeah. You've quoted me in ways that make my point (that bad regulation is worse than no regulation ... but not all regulation is bad.) And you agreed. And yet, you think the quotes you've highlighted mean something else.

I'm done.