Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And with coal being mined cheaper the more you skimp on safety, this will provide each state with a clear economic motive to make their rules as laissez-faire and non-intrusive as possible. The industry has made it clear that it's perfectly OK with dead miners as part of doing business.
lmao You did something my favorite democrat does, you pulled a Grayson.
You don't understand how simple economics works. If the job is too dangerous for the pay and people die or get hurt, employment drops. Stay with me now. If employment drops so does the amount of coal being mined and the company makes less money.
An entire industry doesn't care if people die LMAO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Of course Rand Paul has gone on record as saying that mountaintop removal mining "enhances the landscape", so nothing from him can surprise me any more.
What he said was some times flattening the land has its enhancements. Not that that was a big point in all this mind you. It's about private property and government intervention into our lives. Someone purposely misrepresenting Rand Pauls comments, wow I'm shocked.
Tell you what, we'll leave it up to you to tell people what they can or can't do with their property. You can tell ski resorts they can't add to their mountains or miners can't flatten their land because you don't like it. Landscape Czar is a good title.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 08-04-2010 at 06:07 AM..
All you have to do to back up your opinion is to present a good argument for why there should NOT be a nationwide standard for mine safety.
The ball's in your court. Go.
Why have the costly, ineffective, extra layer of federal government?
Why have someone out of you state make decisions for your state? They don't have the expertise that instate people have on their particular mines.
Better for the state to be in control as it is easier to get rid of or hire the ones in charge. If a bad regulation for your state is put through it is easier to change if it is done by the state compared to the feds.
One size does not fit all. Different regulations and ideas on how to go about it allows different choices to fit the situation.
Reduce costs, increase efficiency and have local control. That's all I could come up with.
Why have the costly, ineffective, extra layer of federal government?
Why have someone out of you state make decisions for your state? They don't have the expertise that instate people have on their particular mines.
Better for the state to be in control as it is easier to get rid of or hire the ones in charge. If a bad regulation for your state is put through it is easier to change if it is done by the state compared to the feds.
One size does not fit all. Different regulations and ideas on how to go about it allows different choices to fit the situation.
Reduce costs, increase efficiency and have local control. That's all I could come up with.
The standard fantasy liberterian response.
There simply is no cogent argument you can make that justifies compromising mine safety. A hodge-podge of state regulations, some lax, others stringent, some ineffective, others overly restrictive and poorly thought-out is to no one's advantage.
Lowering costs at the expense of safety is short-sighted and in the long run offers no economy to anyone, after claims are paid to settle the aftermath of explosions and collapses. In recent years we've all witnessed the disasters spawned by the lax and inconsistnet oversight of mine safety. After all, deregulation and let the market decide were the battle cries of the free marketeers in the Bush/Cheney era. And that resulted in multiple costly mine accidents and even in the current BP disaster in the Gulf.
Nope. These industries will cut any corner and scrimp on any and all safety concerns if they're allowed to. Time and again they've shown that they have no regard for anything but the bottom line, and damn the risks to employees, the environment, and the public. They need to be overseen and the Feds have the constitutional duty (interstate commerce, remember) to do it.
I'd put that family up against yours any day. Unless its a battle of vapid posts.
His family is smart enough to know if a job is too dangerous for the pay they wont do it. They dont need a nanny to tell them what to do. They use their brains.
In other words, Rand is saying, the government has their noses where they don't belong.
If conditions in mines are so bad, the workers have the choice to solve the problem, or leave, so the mine will not produce and the owner will hire illegals to do the work.
There simply is no cogent argument you can make that justifies compromising mine safety. A hodge-podge of state regulations, some lax, others stringent, some ineffective, others overly restrictive and poorly thought-out is to no one's advantage.
Lowering costs at the expense of safety is short-sighted and in the long run offers no economy to anyone, after claims are paid to settle the aftermath of explosions and collapses. In recent years we've all witnessed the disasters spawned by the lax and inconsistnet oversight of mine safety. After all, deregulation and let the market decide were the battle cries of the free marketeers in the Bush/Cheney era. And that resulted in multiple costly mine accidents and even in the current BP disaster in the Gulf.
Nope. These industries will cut any corner and scrimp on any and all safety concerns if they're allowed to. Time and again they've shown that they have no regard for anything but the bottom line, and damn the risks to employees, the environment, and the public. They need to be overseen and the Feds have the constitutional duty (interstate commerce, remember) to do it.
"If they bought the property, they own the property, they can do with that property, as long as they don't pollute someone else's property. And I don't think they want to. If they dump something in the river that goes to the next property, your local judges here will stop them. But I don't think they're doing that. I think what they're doing is what they can do with property they own, and doesn't appear to me to be something the federal government should be getting involved with."
***
What was particularly risible was Paul's contention that if these operations polluted their neighbors, why, local judges would surely hold the polluters liable for the damages to their neighbors. Evidently, Paul knows nothing about the history of broad form deeds, which were the legal instrument used by the coal companies to obtain rights to the lands they then leveled without regard to their neighbors....
[W]ealthy interests manipulate policy at the state and federal level, and likewise manipulate the law and the courts in their favor, all while the interests of ordinary people are bulldozed. And it's all done under the supposed "principles" of libertarianism -- which really are just convenient way for corporate interests to run amok without regard to the consequences for any of their fellow citizens.
One has to suspect that Rand Paul actually is perfectly aware of this -- and just doesn't care. He has his precious "principles" to run on. He calls them "libertarian". We call him a corporate tool.
I believe we should have countervailing tariffs to eliminate the price advantage of imported goods gained by child labor, lax safety standards and lack of pollution controls. The tariffs should be set at 150% of the price advantage. This tariff would go a long way toward recovering our industrial sector.
"If they bought the property, they own the property, they can do with that property, as long as they don't pollute someone else's property. And I don't think they want to. If they dump something in the river that goes to the next property, your local judges here will stop them. But I don't think they're doing that. I think what they're doing is what they can do with property they own, and doesn't appear to me to be something the federal government should be getting involved with."
***
What was particularly risible was Paul's contention that if these operations polluted their neighbors, why, local judges would surely hold the polluters liable for the damages to their neighbors. Evidently, Paul knows nothing about the history of broad form deeds, which were the legal instrument used by the coal companies to obtain rights to the lands they then leveled without regard to their neighbors....
[W]ealthy interests manipulate policy at the state and federal level, and likewise manipulate the law and the courts in their favor, all while the interests of ordinary people are bulldozed. And it's all done under the supposed "principles" of libertarianism -- which really are just convenient way for corporate interests to run amok without regard to the consequences for any of their fellow citizens.
One has to suspect that Rand Paul actually is perfectly aware of this -- and just doesn't care. He has his precious "principles" to run on. He calls them "libertarian". We call him a corporate tool.
I've actually voted Liberterain a couple of times. I was impressed by their motto of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. In recent years, they've lost their thread entirely. They've become corporate toadies to an extent that even the GOP would blush at.
I've actually voted Liberterain a couple of times. I was impressed by their motto of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. In recent years, they've lost their thread entirely. They've become corporate toadies to an extent that even the GOP would blush at.
"The standard fantasy liberterian response" is perfect -- applies consistently. Look at these folks. "If those miners don't like mining, why don't they leave?" "Why didn't those Indians just get with the program?"
In other words, Rand is saying, the government has their noses where they don't belong.
If conditions in mines are so bad, the workers have the choice to solve the problem, or leave, so the mine will not produce and the owner will hire illegals to do the work.
You mean, strike? Somehow I dont think you do
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
