The eventual effects of deregulation

ZappasGuitar said:
Want to see what the eventual effects of removing those pesky safety inspections, deregulating businesses and letting them police themselves would be?

De-Regulation = Ka-BOOM!


Last night, a huge explosion ripped through West, Texas, a small town near Waco, killing somewhere between five and 15 people and injuring hundreds. While criminal activity hasn’t been ruled out, the New York Times has reported that the fire began at a fertilizer plant:

It began with a smaller fire at the plant, West Fertilizer, just off Interstate 35, about 20 miles north of Waco that was attended by local volunteer firefighters, said United States Representative Bill Flores. “The fire spread and hit some of these tanks that contain chemicals to treat the fertilizer,” Mr. Flores said, “and there was an explosion which caused wide damage.”

It’s impossible to know at this point whether unsafe workplace conditions were a direct cause of this disaster, but we do know that it was cited for failing to obtain or qualify for a permit in 2006 after a complaint of a strong ammonia smell, a smell that was reported to be “very bad last night.” The plant hasn’t been inspected in the past five years, and in fact only six Texas fertilizer plants were inspected in that time. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is chronically understaffed, which means that a given plant like West Fertilizer can only expect to get a state inspection once every 67 years on average.

With this kind of neglect, worker safety is in serious condition. More than 4,500 people were killed at work in 2010, up three percent from the previous year, meaning that more American workers died on the job in one year than died during the entire Iraq war. This doesn’t even count the others who might suffer from dangerous workplace conditions like those residents of West injured in the blast who didn’t work at the plant.

While OSHA has been a good deal more effective than it was during the Bush years, it still suffers from a lack of funding and staff. Worse, it’s slated to take a huge cut under the sequester. The agency will have to cut its $564.8 million budget by 8.2 percent, which the White House predicted would mean 1,200 fewer workplace inspections. And it would be even more hobbled if House Republicans get their way. The party’s 2011 budget, which was little changed in the most recent iteration, sought to reduce OSHA’s budget by $99 million while slashing other workplace protection agencies.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...-hadnt-been-inspected-in-the-past-five-years/
Click to expand...
It's a balance. Over regulation is as bad as no or too little regulation.
 
NOVA said:
Want to see what the eventual effects of removing those pesky safety inspections, deregulating businesses and letting them police themselves would be?



Why should we......NOBODY wants or supports removing safety inspections or complete deregulation or businesses and letting them police themselves....NOBODY

Strawman bullshit strikes again....
Click to expand...
Jesus sweet lord. What's the world coming to when I actually agree with you. Zappa's OP is a strawman.
 
cawacko said:
OSHA isn't making the claim they are more effective under Obama than Bush it is the author and he gives no evidence of how he came to that conclusion.
Click to expand...


Well then cite the numbers that prove me wrong and I will admit I was wrong.

Until then however...all I hear is more of the same whining because you guys don't like admitting that deregulation will ensure that explosions like the one in Texas become more prevalent.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Riiiiiiiiight...once again everyone TALKS a good game about not wanting total deregulation, yet here is the proof that just isn't true.

FIVE YEARS with no inspections at this plant because the agency charged with inspections is hopelessly UNDERFUNDED.
Click to expand...
Well that's a legitimate topic for discussion but if that's the case there's enough blame to go around. In all that time there were times when Democrats were in charge and they didn't see a significant increase in either funding or enforcement authority.

I agree that this needs to be investigated to determine if that played a role in preventing this disaster from occuring and that there should be public discussion concerning this.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Well then cite the numbers that prove me wrong and I will admit I was wrong.

Until then however...all I hear is more of the same whining because you guys don't like admitting that deregulation will ensure that explosions like the one in Texas become more prevalent.
Click to expand...

No one here has the numbers which is why your assumption was pure conjecture.

What deregulation act caused this to occur? Is there specific legislation you have in mind?
 
cawacko said:
It states nothing about the death of workers during the Bush Administration. It says it is more effective now than under Bush's watch yet shows death totals rising under Obama. He doesn't describe why it more effective when deaths are rising.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you'd like the answer. Could it be that there was more new regulation under the Bush administration than this one?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's a balance. Over regulation is as bad as no or too little regulation.
Click to expand...


Just show me one instance of over regulation resulting in a blast that destroyed half a town and I will concede the point.

I don't believe we've come anywhere NEAR anything resembling OVER regulation.
 
Superfreak said:
Because...



They are saying OSHA is more effective than under Bush, but that the deaths went up under Obama. That is what he was commenting on.

Also... In 2007 the Dems took over complete control of Congress (and thus the purse strings)...they then gained the WH in early 2009... they had the ability to pass Obamacare, but couldn't increase funding for OSHA?
Click to expand...
If your point here is to attack the source for lacking credibility and not providing data or references to support their claims.....I have to agree with you. I'd rather see primary sources for this data than those published by Think Progress.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't know if you'd like the answer. Could it be that there was more new regulation under the Bush administration than this one?
Click to expand...

So more regulations (which Zappa is arguing is good) under the Bush Administration caused the agency to be less efficient? If that's your position it's definitely possible as I would think any agency having to adapt to new rule changes would take some time to get fully up and running on the new requirements.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Just show me one instance of over regulation resulting in a blast that destroyed half a town and I will concede the point.

I don't believe we've come anywhere NEAR anything resembling OVER regulation.
Click to expand...

Again I don't even think you understand your own point. First of all nobody argued for no regulation of these places. Second of all what was deregulated? The regulations are there. They may or may jot have followed them. I don't know and neither do you. As to OSHAs funding, that is a separate issue and worthy of debate. But nothing you posted indicates that any regulations were eliminated. Unless you don't really understand the meaning of deregulation. At this point you might as well blame the explosion on guns. It would make just about as much sense.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
He's dong the best he can...he's been severely hamstrung due to Rightie refusal to properly fund OSHA.
Click to expand...
It's not just funding. There are a zillion industries out there and OSHA can't be at all places, at all times, doing inspections. OSHA will always have a budget that will limit them to when and where and whom they can inspect. The still have to prioritize specific industry sectors and businesses. Maybe this was an administrative over sight by not placing more emphasis on inspecting fertilizer and agricultural chemical manufacturers as an industry segment? If so, then that would be a failure of the administrative branch (executive) of government.

In other words, be patient and lets find out what the investigation turns up. I bet there'll be a whole bunch of blame to go around. Not just an underfunding of OSHA.
 
cawacko said:
So more regulations (which Zappa is arguing is good) under the Bush Administration caused the agency to be less efficient? If that's your position it's definitely possible as I would think any agency having to adapt to new rule changes would take some time to get fully up and running on the new requirements.
Click to expand...
I wasn't taking a position. I was mearly pointing out to you that if you think more regulation was part of the problem than you might not like that answer.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Because they didn't control Congress for four years.

I mean come on, when do you think we might start being honest about that tired point?
Click to expand...

Being honest about what? Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house for four years from 2007 - 2010. The House controls the purse strings. Harry Reid has been Senate Majority Leader for six years. What am I missing?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Because they didn't control Congress for four years.

I mean come on, when do you think we might start being honest about that tired point?
Click to expand...

What world so you live in? The GOP lost the Congress in 2006 and didn't win the House back until 2010. What a world you have crafted for yourself. Ladies and gentleman may I present exhibit A of the low information voter
 
cawacko said:
Being honest about what? Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the house for four years from 2007 - 2010. The House controls the purse strings. Harry Reid has been Senate Majority Leader for six years. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I quit.

There just is no honest discussion with you anymore, is there?

WTH happened to you man?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top