The eventual effects of deregulation

zappasguitar

Well-known member
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/
 
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....
 
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....


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.
 
And of course when they can't counter the argument, out come the taunts and insults...just like clockwork.
over the last 7 years, we've had a democrat president and a dem majority in the house followed by a conservative majority in the house. you want to place the blame on your 'enemy' party and then mock when you get called out on your shit. again, you're pathetic.
 
Interesting that the article said worker deaths are up three percent for 2010 from 2009 yet they claim OSHA is more effective.
 
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.



FIVE Years, huh ?......Odd that that is precisely how long Obama and the Democrats have been running everything in the government....there was enough money
to fund the Mexican drug cartels with weapons, enought to go from a 438 billion dollar deficit in 2008 to about 972 billion dollar deficit in 2012.

Obama can fly AF1 3 or 4 times a week, EVERY WEEK, at $180,000 and hour, take taxpayer funded golf outings and fundraiser trips, and have extravagant parties in DC but there is no money for the last five years to fund inspections.....you gotta be shittin' me.

and when you get right down to the facts....spending has risen EVERY year hes been in office, even with 'sequestration'.....which is a lousy 3% cut in the growth of spending

Did they fire all the inspectors ?....Is the agency defunct ?....If they still have employees at the agency, wtf are they doing if not inspecting....? Caddying ?

You're so brainwashed, you're pathetic....
 
Interesting that the article said worker deaths are up three percent for 2010 from 2009 yet they claim OSHA is more effective.

It said OSHA was more effective THAN DURING THE BUSH YEARS.

"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."

It means (big surprise) that more workers died during the Bush Administration.

Why'd you leave off the relevant part of that quote?
 
It said OSHA was more effective THAN DURING THE BUSH YEARS.

"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."

It means (big surprise) that more workers died during the Bush Administration.

Why'd you leave off the relevant part of that quote?

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.
 
It said OSHA was more effective THAN DURING THE BUSH YEARS.

"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."

It means (big surprise) that more workers died during the Bush Administration.

Why'd you leave off the relevant part of that quote?

Because...

More than 4,500 people were killed at work in 2010 (Obama was President), up three percent from the previous year (Obama was President), 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.

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?
 
Failure due to Congressional Conservative's refusal to properly fund the Agency charged with making sure our workplaces are safe for the rank and file employee.

Make up your mind puddin pop. Is it lack of regulation or lack of money? Did Obama ask for more money? Did the Senate put more money in their last four budgets? Are you just bitching to bitch with no actual point and trying to force some recent event into your worldview? What exactly is your point puddin pop? I don't even think you know other than your desire to nestle your sweet head in the bosom of the federal gobblement.
 
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?


OSHA claims deaths climbed by 3% from 2009 to 2010.

NO WHERE does it state that deaths in 2009 were higher than in 2008 or before.

THAT is how OSHA can claim they are more effective under Obama than they were under Bush.

No, they couldn't get it passed, not with the ever present threat of another fillibuster from obstructionist Righties hanging over everyone's heads.
 
Make up your mind puddin pop. Is it lack of regulation or lack of money? Did Obama ask for more money? Did the Senate put more money in their last four budgets? Are you just bitching to bitch with no actual point and trying to force some recent event into your worldview? What exactly is your point puddin pop? I don't even think you know other than your desire to nestle your sweet head in the bosom of the federal gobblement.


If I thought you'd actually discuss this with the tiniest bit of honesty I'd answer you.

Fortunately I know you're just another whiny troll out to divert another thread.
 
OSHA claims deaths climbed by 3% from 2009 to 2010.

NO WHERE does it state that deaths in 2009 were higher than in 2008 or before.

THAT is how OSHA can claim they are more effective under Obama than they were under Bush.

No, they couldn't get it passed, not with the ever present threat of another fillibuster from obstructionist Righties hanging over everyone's heads.

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.
 
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.

Correct. The author makes an unsupported claim and Zappa did exactly what the author expected. It is a normal way to lie through omission. Had the statistics actually supported the claim of the author they would have been included in the story, instead we only get stats between two years that do not support that claim.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
 
Back
Top