APP - we have met the enemy and he is us

Southern Man said:
If its cheaper to go bankrupt then companies will do that, leaving the government to pick up the tab. Democrats write laws that allow folks to avoid personal responsibility, so you reap what you sow. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Dems push for tort reform? Deregulation? Sure some do but that kind of pro business stuff is part of the Republicans and even libertarians platform.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So much for all the vaunted "personal responsibility" I keep hearing about, but what we've come to expect from many business owners. They're all capitalists until it's time to do the right thing, then they all turn to socialists and expect a bailout.
Click to expand...
I've never supported a bailout.
 
uscitizen said:
Dems push for tort reform? Deregulation? Sure some do but that kind of pro business stuff is part of the Republicans and even libertarians platform.
Click to expand...
Tort reform is good for everyone- except the trial lawyers, who are of course beholden to the Democrats. There are many regulations that are superfluous, redundant or overly restrictive and should be eliminated or streamlined.
 
Southern Man said:
I've never supported a bailout.
Click to expand...

Companies that shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs are a big reason there are so many environmental "hoops" in place for businesses to jump through before they can begin any kind of construction.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Companies that shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs are a big reason there are so many environmental "hoops" in place for businesses to jump through before they can begin any kind of construction.
Click to expand...

Yep and why we have superfund.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Companies that shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs are a big reason there are so many environmental "hoops" in place for businesses to jump through before they can begin any kind of construction.
Click to expand...
Most of the time it's not the company's responsibility, but a change in understanding of science or a policy change. As an environmental engineer I've worked with many clients with the opinion that the government should be held responsible for not changing the rules- what used to be legal then is not legal now- but they are now required to spend millions cleaning up what they could have avoided years ago for mere thousands.
 
Southern Man said:
More money is spent on lawyers and bureaucrats than actual clean-up under that program. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Probably true, but it has cleaned up a lot of badly polluted places. Including some where our nuclear industries first flourished.

Hanford, WA has nuke wastes leakiing into the Columbia river drainage.
TN has nuke waste sites around Oak Ridge, etc..


On nuke power I am for it, but only after we settle the nuke waste problem.
Something we have not settled in over 50 years.
 
We have solved it, scientifically. Its called "reprocessing" followed by "Yucca Mountain". We've been waiting over two decades for a political solution to it.
 
Southern Man said:
We have solved it, scientifically. Its called "reprocessing" followed by "Yucca Mountain". We've been waiting over two decades for a political solution to it.
Click to expand...

So there are no issues with storing it in Yucca mountain? All that is solved?

Of course it is political. No one want's it in their back yard.
I personally think each state capitol should have an accompanying nuke storage facility for that states waste only. Knowing politicians, it would be stored safely.
 
Southern Man said:
Most of the time it's not the company's responsibility, but a change in understanding of science or a policy change. As an environmental engineer I've worked with many clients with the opinion that the government should be held responsible for not changing the rules- what used to be legal then is not legal now- but they are now required to spend millions cleaning up what they could have avoided years ago for mere thousands.
Click to expand...


I can see your point, but something has to be done about making companies take responsibility for their actions. Maybe in exchange for a guarantee that the business will not just file bankruptcy the Government can agree to not modify any applicable environmental laws while said business is operating and current on all taxes and such.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I can see your point, but something has to be done about making companies take responsibility for their actions. Maybe in exchange for a guarantee that the business will not just file bankruptcy the Government can agree to not modify any applicable environmental laws while said business is operating and current on all taxes and such.
Click to expand...

The government's not willing to do that. They have a big hammer and unlimited funds to pay their lawyers, and can also just simply freeze assets or take the money out of their bank accounts.
 
uscitizen said:
So there are no issues with storing it in Yucca mountain? All that is solved?

Of course it is political. No one want's it in their back yard.
I personally think each state capitol should have an accompanying nuke storage facility for that states waste only. Knowing politicians, it would be stored safely.
Click to expand...
You're not advocating the best scientific solution, which is what I've stated. Is it perfect?- no, but it is certainly better than what you're your proposing, which is also of course a political impossibility in most states so would result in decommissioning of most nuclear energy plants.
 
Ok, I'll explain.

Tort reform would put limits on the amount of money that can be awarded in a lawsuit. While that sounds good, it can also screw the person who was harmed by the negligence of a company or person.

Suppose Lunatics Inc made a widget that they knew (and it can be shown they knew) was faulty or dangerous. Suppose Mr. John Q. Public died because of the faulty widget. He was 25 and had two small children.

What is the price of having your father at your Little League games, High School & College Graduation, or walk you down the aisle when you marry?

$250,000? $2.5 million? If the kid is 3 when Dad dies,





Suppose a Dr screws up and does irreparable harm to Jane Q. Public. She is 17 when it happens and will now need live-in help for the rest of her life.

If she lives to be 75, that is 58 years. $2.5 million dollars sounds like a lot. But it works out to be less than $45k a year. Hard to keep herself taken care of with that amount. And given the recent history of investments, thats not much of a guarantee either.




Suppose Lunatics Inc knew about the faulty widget, but between the recall and the bad press caused by the recall, they figured it would cost them $5 million. If the lawsuit limits were $2.5 million, it would be a smart business decision to leave the faulty widgets out there.
 
Yep and removing liablility for airlines flying planes over a certain age. This was done in FL.
Under a Bush.
 
Southern Man said:
$2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug*
Click to expand...

And you would be willing to guarantee that she could get 7% throughout her entire life?

Ask the people who retired with "plenty" of money before 2008 how that nest egg is doing now.

According to this site: http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/elder_care/elder_care_cost_finder.html

Having in home healthcare 24 hrs a day will cost $166,440.00 per year in Chicago IL.

And the same care in NY will run $131,400.00 in average annual costs.

If they live in Charlotte NC it will run them an average $148,920.00 per year.


Doesn't leave much for their other living expenses and doctor bills, does it?

I also think calling someone "loser" without researching the information is inappropriate for this particular forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top