lax regulations result in no drinking water for 300k. thanks Freedom Industries

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Obviously you dont see increasing the cost of doing business in response to misconduct as a punishment, and that fine. The real issue her eis how does that hurt or reprimand the guilty corp that is out of business?

it doesnt, it add cost to doing business to those who have dont nothing wrong.

If you were trying to have the owners of the factory that spilled flogged or something I'd be with you, it isnt about ignoring whats been done, as some have thoughtlessly suggested, its about going after the guilty party and them alone.

In terms of protecting the environment, I don't give a fukk if it adds costs to businesses. But for government regulation that protects the environment to be effective, it has to be STRINGENTLY ENFORCED. Not this "well, we'll come inspect every 8 years" bullshyt. Supporting something like that does not mean you have to be in favor of every single government regulation out there.

 

[DEAD7]

you're dense

that's what you got out of it?

where did it state that the government was protecting the business? bankruptcy rules work the same way for corporations and individuals. bailouts are a moral hazard that represents the government protecting businesses. this situation is not it.

AND COULD YOU fukkN STOP using the word government without establishing whether or not you're talking about the state or federal level. Differentiating between the two establishes very different philosophies on government intervention.

Those on the left are completely blind to the reach of government, which explains many of their positions. Almost every f*cked up thing about this is facilitated by govt. in some capacity.
Yet blamed on the free market by the mentally challenged.
I know links to factual evidence supporting my claim of it being govt. will not sway the govt. lovers, but at least I know I tried to unplug you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders,[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy in the United States is a matter placed under federal jurisdiction by the United States Constitution (in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), which allows Congress to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States". The Congress has enacted statutes governing bankruptcy, primarily in the form of the Bankruptcy Code, located at Title 11 of the United States Code. Federal law is amplified by state law in some places where Federal law fails to speak or expressly defers to state law.

While bankruptcy cases are always filed in United States Bankruptcy Court (an adjunct to the U.S. District Courts), bankruptcy cases, particularly with respect to the validity of claims and exemptions, are often dependent upon State law. State law therefore plays a major role in many bankruptcy cases, and it is often not possible to generalise bankruptcy law across state lines.

 

[DEAD7]

In terms of protecting the environment, I don't give a fukk if it adds costs to businesses. But for government regulation that protects the environment to be effective, it has to be STRINGENTLY ENFORCED. Not this "well, we'll come inspect every 8 years" bullshyt. Supporting something like that does not mean you have to be in favor of every single government regulation out there.

Cant argue with that. I just know the regulation will be for show/votes, and not really provide a worthwhile reduction in risk. The regulations in place already are more than enough, and this was simply an accident.








I just hope you see the connection between "I don't give a fukk if it adds costs to businesses" and jobs being shipped over seas.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Those on the left are completely blind to the reach of government, which explains many of their positions. Almost every f*cked up thing about this is facilitated by govt. in some capacity.
Yet blamed on the free market by the mentally challenged.
I know links to factual evidence supporting my claim of it being govt. will not sway the govt. lovers, but at least I know I tried to unplug you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

like I said, you're dense

you still don't understand that the federal government and state government are 2 separate entities

so to say that the "government" is FOR corporations, without explaining which level of government, is completely disingenuous

and yet again, bankruptcy rules are the same for corporations as they are individuals. bankruptcy is not a form of corporate welfare. its rules however can be abused by the corporation and made into a legal form of corporate welfare. however it is not the same moral hazard as a bailout. the end.

 

[DEAD7]

like I said, you're dense

you still don't understand that the federal government and state government are 2 separate entities

so to say that the "government" is FOR corporations, without explaining which level of government, is completely disingenuous

and yet again, bankruptcy rules are the same for corporations as they are individuals. bankruptcy is not a form of corporate welfare. its rules however can be abused by the corporation and made into a legal form of corporate welfare. however it is not the same moral hazard as a bailout. the end.

They are protected by govt. why exactly does it matter to you which level of govt. it is? Is it ok at the state level? or ok at the fed level?
To answer you, its the federal govt. that is protecting them.
In practice bankruptcy is exactly the same as a bailout, as they are demonstrating. I am not a supporter of bankruptcy across the board, but I get why its appealing.







I'm not quite clear on what you are trying to say Are you saying they are not being protected by govt. and/or escaping through govt. created loopholes? If not, I dont see what we are disagreeing on....

 

[NZA]

protection is a distraction. the issue is prevention. actual regulation of these companies is the best way to reduce the likelihood of them happening. being able to file a law suit after the fact doesnt keep this from happening, especially when the previous owner knew he was just going to sell the company after he ran it dangerously.

 

[DEAD7]

protection is a distraction. the issue is prevention. actual regulation of these companies is the best way to reduce the likelihood of them happening. being able to file a law suit after the fact doesnt keep this from happening, especially when the previous owner knew he was just going to sell the company after he ran it dangerously.

See, I'm more concerned with the guilty corp paying for his spill in full, and everyone harmed being compensated in full, then I am prevention. I want justice, and govt. protections prevent this.

These spills aren't common enough to warrant the extra expenditure of govt. funds(on top of those already in place), which I doubt the state(and definitely not the fed)has to spare.

 

[Jhoon]

some folks worry about the horse after it has left the barn, and others want to prevent horses from leaving the barn. some folks want to wipe their ass then grab a toilet paper. but thats why they are conservative. they are that way for a reason

 

[DEAD7]

some folks worry about the horse after it has left the barn, and others want to prevent horses from leaving the barn. some folks want to wipe their ass then grab a toilet paper. but thats why they are conservative. they are that way for a reason

Punishment should come after the crime IMHO, and I stand by that.

The threat of a spill isnt high enough to warrent new regulation on top of the regulation already in place at the state and federal level.



"The discharge of chemicals or other contaminants into our water supply is unacceptable and will not be tolerated," Tomblin, a Democrat, said in a joint statement with U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, also a Democrat, and the heads of the state Senate and House of Delegates.

Its illegal, how is it tolerated by any stretch. This man knows how to win some votes. Its like saying murder is unacceptable, and will not be tolerated...

 

[Jhoon]

your persistent misuse of the word punishment lets me know youre not worthy of quoting. try that shyt somewhere else

 

[DEAD7]

your persistent misuse of the word punishment lets me know youre not worthy of quoting. try that shyt somewhere else

here let me translate... some people worry about the horse after its left the barn if its by accident and measures were already taken to prevent it.

Many of you are posting under the assumption there are little to no regulations already and/or that they purposely poisoned these people. I dont think there is a bad guy in the story tbh

Spoiler

except govt.

 

[superunknown23]

you're the one who doesn't seem to grasp what bankruptcy is in this thread, did you skip business law?

You're assuming that he went to college or something.
That fool is incapable of rational thought and relies on selective wikipedia posts for everything.

 

[DEAD7]

You're assuming that he went to college or something.
That fool is incapable of rational thought and relies on selective wikipedia posts for everything.

Ignoring the fact I went to college,what the f*ck does that mean? I have never seen my degree as badge over anyone elses knowledge
The bankruptcy wiki page is selective, when bankruptcy is the topic?

The corporation page is selective when corporations are the topic?

and you have no counter argument to it being govt. protections which was my sole point. Dismissal, deflection, and personal attacks are all you got. Why fight the truth?

 

[NZA]

See, I'm more concerned with the guilty corp paying for his spill in full, and everyone harmed being compensated in full, then I am prevention. I want justice, and govt. protections prevent this.

These spills aren't common enough to warrant the extra expenditure of govt. funds(on top of those already in place), which I doubt the state(and definitely not the fed)has to spare.

i doubt you really know the number of water contaminations across the country in a given year; how many are prevented by jurisdictions that actually enforce the existing regulatory standards, and how many actually do damage people's health but are never detected due to weak investigations. if business politics hadnt swung so right wing in the last decade or even more, who knows how things would be...

and as i said earlier, the people who had owned this company for most of its shady life sold it, so there is no real punishment for the biggest culprit. the latest purchaser played hot potato and lost.

also, not every person in america is going to have circumstances where they can afford to compete in court against rich companies. this is a slam dunk case, but not all commercial shenanigans are easy to prove, nor are all damages easy to prove. people with major resources will be the only ones always able to get justice.

and i might as well add, if you can prevent one person from dying or becoming horribly injured, the money is most likely worth it...well, if you have a decent appreciation for life. (see the texas chemical plant explosion)

 

[DEAD7]

i doubt you really know the number of water contaminations across the country in a given year; how many are prevented by jurisdictions that actually enforce the existing regulatory standards, and how many actually do damage people's health but are never detected due to weak investigations. if business politics hadnt swung so right wing in the last decade or even more, who knows how things would be...

and as i said earlier, the people who had owned this company for most of its shady life sold it, so there is no real punishment for the biggest culprit. the latest purchaser played hot potato and lost.

also, not every person in america is going to have circumstances where they can afford to compete in court against rich companies. this is a slam dunk case, but not all commercial shenanigans are easy to prove, nor are all damages easy to prove. people with major resources will be the only ones always able to get justice.

and i might as well add, if you can prevent one person from dying or becoming horribly injured, the money is most likely worth it...well, if you have a decent appreciation for life. (see the texas chemical plant explosion)

Fair enough.