Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: regulation is for wimps

Posted 11 years ago on April 22, 2013, 10:26 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

.............................................................................signed - rick "fertilizer" perry



Read the Rules


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago



There's those pesky neolibe(R)tarians at work again.

Will all those compassionate, giving Texas billionaires rebuild west?

Nope, they lie about almost everything.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

Did you notice the sign on the new bush building -
gwb lie-bury
you could really bring this back to ronnie
the de-regulation addict

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

I saw a guy in an '83' Grand Marquis yesterday, with a brand new Reagan/Bush '84' bumper sticker.

All I could think, is that this one of those that proudly started all this shit.

It made me sad, that he never learned the truth..

[-] -3 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Fifteen people died and scores injured in that blast. The cause is not yet known. Show a little dignity for the sake of the people..

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

And maybe if the rightwingnuts support government regulation - by taxing 1% to protect the 99% - maybe the next 15 victims of deregulation will survive

[-] -3 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

You should be ashamed of yourself trying to make political points when the dead firefighters and EMS responders aren’t even buried yet. This is not the time or place for political arguments.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

Narley, anyone trying to make political points for what happened in Boston is a piece of shit, but this catastrophic accident and what needs to be done to ensure it never happens again, is the reason why we put up with politics, and it should, one hundred percent, be made a political talking point.

Texas prides her self on being business friendly, and this is the consequence of such policies. If this does not have political ramifications or should not be made political then nothing should. Regulating the private sector is the only reason I even participate in politics, and this accident demonstrates one of the reasons I am so adamant on my position. When there is no checks on behavior, behavior deteriorates. Your parents should have taught you that.

[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

You seem to assume this was a failure of regulation or enforcement. I won’t rule it out, but I’m not ready to make that assumption. The anger at government in general has caused some people here to always blame the government, no matter what. Take a step back and be more objective.

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

Dude, this will go down in history as a text book example of why free markets are a free for all. The one thing local government should have regulated efficiently, Zoning, was neglected because of a business friendly environment--are you fucking kidding me, they put a school and a nursing home next to a combustible factory -- The Nation should think long and hard if this type of national policy is wise or reckless.

The zoning issue alone should peak your indignation. If Texas is the model held high, as a vindication for business friendly government, we should be asking, how cool of a destination does Texas seem to be? Kinda makes you wonder who their police serve and neglect to protect.

If the market can corrupt the local, what chance does the nation have?

[-] -2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Read my response to Buttercup and few posts down.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 11 years ago

Enron, Halliburton, Massey Energy, Don't know about you, but those bad apples seem to harvest more frequently in business friendly climates. This latest blunder is just, for me, an I told you so moment.

I bet those hazardous buildings you see all over your landscape are better regulated by local officials than Texas's industries.

[-] -2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

So you think business friendly environments are bad? Texas has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the US and one of the lowest tax rates in the US. Housing is more affordable and crime is low, at least outside the Houston and Dallas inner city. Fleeing Californians have moved to Texas by the millions in the last ten years. Austin, TX has consistently been on every “Best places to live” list for the past twelve years.

Bottom line is people are moving to Texas in droves for jobs, low cost of living and quality of life for over a decade. So you can knock Texas all you want, it’s still one of the best places to live in the US right now.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

sure - lets wait till deregulation & lack of inspections cause some food poisoning or another explosion

[-] -3 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

It’s simply a common courtesy to not use innocent victims of a tragedy to make points. Please show a little compassion for the people of West, TX.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

Too bad this company didn't use a little 'compassion' when it failed to report the tons of ammonium nitrate it was storing.


Too bad this town decided that schools should be located next to a ticking time bomb.


[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Yea, I’ve read all the stories. I am quite familiar with the town. It doesn’t change the fact it’s in bad taste to try to capitalize on the grief of these people. Why don't you make a donation. A lot of the senior citizen at the old folks home don't have any place to go now. They could use some help.

[-] 8 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

Really Narley? Really? 'now we give out cell phones, aptly called Obama phones'? Is that what Ted Cruz told you Narley?

The low income cell phone program has been around for 20 years. It is paid for by the Universal Service Fund by phone companies. Cell phones with limited prepaid minutes are loaned to welfare to work recipients who do not have a phone. Because it is often useful to have a phone when you are trying to get a job so a potential employer can contact you and your welfare to work case officer can check in with you and follow up.



'like WPA in the 1930’s' - there is not a single fucking Republican in Congress who supported Pres. Obama's American Jobs Program which would have put 1 million people to work and increased GDP by 1.4%! Do you think Ted Cruz would have voted for this? No.


'in some way they should pay for the governments help' - Are you aware of 1996 Welfare to Work Reform? Yes it provides eligibility for food stamps, rental assistance, utility assistance and cell phone assistance as necessary.

Key features:

Single parents must participate in work activities for an average of 30 hours per week, or an average of 20 hours per week if they have a child under age six. Two-parent families must participate in work activities for an average of 35 hours a week or, if they receive Federal child care assistance, 55 hours a week. Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of a family's benefits.

Work activities include unsubsidized employment; community service, subsidized employment; on-the-job training; up to 12 months of vocational education; job search (for up to six weeks) and job readiness training; high school or GED education for recipients under age 20; and high school or GED education for those 20 or over 20 if combined with other listed activities.

The TANF program is intended to provide temporary financial assistance while the recipients seek employment that will allow them to fully support themselves and their families. As a result, families with an adult who has received federally-funded assistance for a total of five years (or less at state option) become ineligible for cash aid under the TANF program.

Everything you think you know is about as accurate as 'Obama phones' Narley. And Pres. Obama is going to take your gun away from you Narley. Because Ted Cruz told you so.

[-] -2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Obama phones are what their called. Do an Internet search. I never heard about them until recently. Maybe they used to be called Bush phones?

I’m not familiar with the Jobs Program or the Welfare to work Program. My guess is they don’t work. I’m just a cynic about any government welfare system. In all the decades we’ve provided welfare it has just gotten worse. We haven’t made a dent in poverty or lowered the need for assistance. The entire welfare system needs to be re-thought. Focus should be beyond giving people housing, food stamps, etc.. We somehow need to focus lifting the people up to the point of no longer needing the public dole.

But, as I said I’m a cynic. I don’t see things changing until the system crumbles. When we can no longer pay the entitlements we will have to find a better way.

For what it’s worth. I’m a pretty liberal. I think the government is corrupt, corporations are evil and Wall Street is the enemy. We just don’t agree on this topic.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

'In all the decades we’ve provided welfare it has just gotten worse' - No you're wrong. Since welfare reform was passed, welfare cases have dropped dramatically. And have remained steady even through the recession and high unemployment. Suggesting that when need-based assistance is needed the most, the threshold for eligibility is so stringent that it isn't helping enough people. But please. Don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs and what Ted Cruz tells you.



'We somehow need to focus lifting the people up to the point of no longer needing the public dole' - You imply that if the welfare system was successful, it could success itself out of existance. And therefore it must be a failure. It can't success itself out of existance. The welfare system is necessary because of our economic system. Capitalism is a system of winners and losers. There will always be unemployment. It is theoretically impossible for capitalism to provide full employment. Do you understand? Full employment is impossible! Having a welfare system simply recognizes this fact. Welfare is a practical humane necessity because of our economic system. It doesn't mean that the welfare system has failed! Despite what Ted Cruz tells you.

On a practical level, it is widely recognized by economic experts that the target unemployment rate is 4%. This is the optimal target rate of the Federal Reserve. So rough numbers. Our unemployment rate now is 8%, twice the target rate. Roughly 30 million able bodied people unemployed, or lacking full time employment to provide a living wage. Which means - that even if the economy were running great, at the optimal target rate of 4% unemployment - there would be 15 million people unemployed! That is a best case scenario. Not because the welfare system is a failure! But because unemployment is inevitable and even necessary in our economic system.

A 4% unemployment level is optimal and healthy. It allows for slack and flexibility in the system to keep wages from rising too quickly which would cause inflation. If unemployment ever went below 4%, the Federal Reserve would constrict the money supply, causing interest rates to rise, spending would decrease, demand for goods would decline, people would be laid off and unemployment would rise. Until it reached the targeted optimal 4% level again.

So there ya go. In a best case scenario, roughly 15 million people would be mandated unemployed. The welfare system cannot success itself out of existance even if it were perfect. It does not mean the welfare system is a failure. Despite what fucking Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Republican/Libertarian Lying Tea Party Koch Whore Party tells you.

'Obama phones are what their called. Do an Internet search' - I'm aware of that. Typical right wing propaganda. If you had done a proper internet search you would have found the facts about the cell phone program. Rather than perpetuating right wing lies and propaganda. Typical Republican bullshit. But don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

'We just don’t agree on this topic' - It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. You are ignorant of the facts.

[-] -1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

You seem hung up on Ted Cruz. So, for the record, The only reason I like him is he’s pro-gun. Otherwise he’s much too radical right for me. Gun rights is about the only issue I’m conservative on.

Sigh, We’re beating a dead horse here, so this will be my last post on the discussion.

My beliefs on welfare are pretty simple. In spite of what you think, our welfare system is a failure. Generally we just give and give without bringing people out of poverty. It’s a recipe for failure. As I mentioned earlier, we’ve created two or three generations of welfare recipients. Creating people who have an expectation the government will take care of them. At some point it will fail, when the takers outweigh the givers it will fail. We must find a better way.

But you’re not interested. You just want to continue to give and give into a system that is clearly doomed. I’m done here.

[-] 2 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

'My beliefs' - yes that's the problem Narley. Your 'beliefs'. Your beliefs are not based on facts. You refuse to acknowledge the facts. That's the problem. Done.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 11 years ago

Did a little reading on Wikipedia about the Great Depression. Seems to me we have some important features about the economy and recovery from recessions and depressions.

1) Government Civilian Workers Corp build national parks, gave people wages, let people be proud of their work, showed young people that work was good, and stimulated the economy.
2) That maybe people want to work, want to create, want to have purpose, want to work toward goals, want a higher purpose, want to pull together.
3) That Fiat Currency is better than a silver or gold standard in that having money in the system, flowing through the economy, is more important than staying with the gold standard.
4) That people holding gold and having control over gold production did nothing for the economy (like the money changers in the bible). Hoarding gold and holding people down forcing them to grovel for gold with no position to bargain from is not condusive to a robust economy.
5) There were Silver Certificates & Gold Certificates in the 19th Century. The result seems to be that farmers were poor after silver certificates were cancelled out. Farmers don't have gold or silver. And if the currency is kept locked up tight by bankers ... the economy sucks.
5) Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) states that the amount of money in the system should be tied to the total population. If money is not flowing it doesn't matter how much money is in the system or it doesn't matter if the bankers have Trillions of dollars.... if the money doesn't get into the hands of consumers, poor people, and middle class people... then the total M4 money supply doesn't matter.
6) In 1933 they suspended the Gold Standard as the USA was the last to go off the gold standard it was the last to get out of the depression. unfortunately the money supply was tightened up in 1936 with the Banking Act which prevented small businesses from getting loans. Probably if prevented consumers from getting loans also.
7) We can learn from Europe and other Countries that have lost their economy as spending slowed down. Many if not most governments spend a big share of the local economy. When the spending slows down it tends to produce recession and unemployment.
8) But you could run an economy if you kept money flowing to households and consumers. If people can purchase things the economy moves.
9) The termination of 84,000 Pension in the USA and the LBOs cancelations of benefits & Retirement should focus you on the loss of wealth in the USA.
10) GINI Coefficient for the USA is pretty bad now.
11) We have had Decapitalization of the USA as Manufacturing has moved off shore. Sales of US Financial Derivatives don't add to the US Economy or a manufacturing GDP. It is discusting that the Federal Government counts Derivatives and Private Banking transactions as part of the US GDP... and they all know that there are Off Balance Sheet transactions which are hidden from Investors and the Public.
12) Even in a Sequester we will spend on TSA, DHS, DOD, War, Drone Strikes, Presidential trips, Vice Presidential Trips, Media Parties for the President, 2 Billion Dollars in AMMO, new contracts for spying, new contracts for video cameras, new security contractors, ..... What a joke the US Congress is. It is a country club. They wouldn't know how to support the Economy or Jobs if it was shoved up their Ass.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

The reality is, the oligarchy is a globalist group. America is just the largest economy they have been bleeding dry, and the largest army they have been using to strong-arm their agenda as globalists.

Time for the wakeup call that has to happen. They don't care if the economy tanks. The fiscal cliff has been pushed forward, and delayed only.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 11 years ago

Movie Oblivion seems to speak to the Issues of Elite Monsters.

Might be worth a spin when available for free.

[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

An old folks home too? Next to hundreds of tons of undisclosed ammonium nitrate. Because - what could possibly go wrong with that plan?

okee dokee then. I stand corrected.

Too bad this town decided that schools and an old folks home should be located next to a ticking time bomb.

'A lot of the senior citizen at the old folks home don't have any place to go now' - why can't they go bunk with the zoning commissioner?

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Aw come on. I doubt you’re that naive. I personally know of two nuclear plants with suburbs just outside the gate. Also oil refineries in the middle of sub-divisions, chemical plants in industrial parks. It’s not unusual for potentially hazardous sites to be near populated areas. Even hazardous cargo travel our highways every day. It’s not just this tiny Texas town, it’s everywhere, no getting away from it.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

ok you win. What we need is more of that Republican/Libertarian free market stuff! Because unregulated unrestrained free markets always work so well. Free markets, without government getting in the way, always work in the best interest for the general welfare of society! Because what could possibly go wrong when we get the government off the backs business?! Yeah! Free market baby!! Whoot whoot!

[-] 2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Somehow I don’t feel like I won. I’m just bummed that people seem to see this as some abstract political issue. For me it’s kind of personal. I know people in that town. There used to be a public swimming pool where the plant was located. As kids we swan there. I was going to go up this Saturday and see if I could help in some way. I was told hundreds of volunteers had showed up and were turned away because they were in the way. Donations is the best way to help right now.

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

Sort of like how it was kind of personal to victims of gun violence when Senate Republican's took a big giant shit on the graves of their loved ones last week? And a big giant fuck you from that fucking depraved sociopath Ted Cruz? Yeah thanks so much for THAT contemptible sick piece of shit you put in office Texas. Good job. Really great. First Bush Jr. Now Ted Cruz. You've really outdone yourselves there in Texas.

Sort of like how it might be kind of personal to victims of gun violence for House Republican's to just allow a vote on gun safety measures? Rather than being given a great big fuck you. Not only to victims of gun violence, but oh, I don't know, a big fuck you to 80-90% of the general population?

You mean like that 'kind of personal'?

[-] -2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

How in the hell did we jump from a blast that likked 15 people to Ted Cruz? Anyway, I voted for Cruz. Someone has to protect us from the New Yorkers. You can throw as big a hissy fit as uyou can muster, I'm keeping my guns. Damn, we got off topic quick.

[-] 7 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

'babysit the people from cradle to grave' - this is lame hyperbole. Either provide factual evidence to back up your extraordinary claim or cut the crap.

For one thing, by a wide margin, the biggest need based assistance program is Medicaid. The vast majority of people receiving Medicaid are the working poor and their children, the elderly and disabled. It's healthcare. Do you consider healthcare for the poor - 'babysitting'? Society has a clear interest in maintaining health standards. Think vaccinations and viruses.

How about food assistance. Lets see. 83% of foodstamps go to poor children, the poor elderly and the poor disabled. Amount recieved is $1.47 per meal. Average length of time receiving benefits is 11 months. You consider 11 months 'cradle to grave'?

'small government' - there are places with small governments. They are called Third World Countries. Places like Rwanda and Somalia. Real Libertarian paradises.

'regulated free market' - that's an oxymoron. Either you have regulated market capitalism or you have free market capitalism.

We had a free market once. The early industrial revolution. That time when workers were brutally exploited in deplorable inhumane working conditions. Young children were put to work doing hard and dangerous labor, and capitalists were oh so 'free' that they exploited workers to the maximum degree.

This was the Libertarian paradise that Libertarians dream of. There was little to no government regulation or government interference! We've already been there and done that. And guess what? It really sucked. If it had been all the sunshine and roses that Libertarians tell us about, there would have been no need for government regulations! It would have been the Libertarian utopia the Libertarians tell us about. Only little problem with that Libertarian utopia was - it wasn't. It was fucking horrible.

And social programs. There was a time before social programs too. That time when there was so much charity that 50% of the elderly lived in abject poverty, most people did not recieve adequate medical care, poor people were sent to poor farms to work as slave labor or were left to die indigent in the streets. We've been there and done that too. It was a real Libertarian paradise.

You Libertarians really crack me up.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 11 years ago

Very nice rebuttal! Five stars.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

I believe we need COMPLETE socialized medicine. Having experience in a medical setting I think it’s the only way. By the way, I also believe in Medicare and Medicaid.

So, How’s the welfare system working for you? I actually believe Romney’s 47% number. I agree we shouldn’t let people starve. At the same time we have two or three generations of welfare recipients. No incentive to look for work. They know the government will provide.

I think there will be a tipping point, where the takers outweigh the givers. Then what? The truth is most social programs are a disgrace. Poorly managed and easily gamed by the recipients. If this continues the system will fail due to overload. That should be obvious to anyone.

As far as free markets. The US has one of the highest living standards in the world. People buy big screen TV’s by the millions, think nothing of spending $25K on a car and will stand in line for hours for the new iPhone. Gluttony is the biggest health problem, The masses live a comfortable and secure life. Generally, Americans don’t know what real hardship is.

So, our values may screwed up, our government is corrupt, corporations are evil and Wall Street is the enemy. The problem is most people aren’t affected by any of it. Most folks are fat and happy and like it that way.


[-] 4 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

The topic is regulation. Fucking Ted Cruz. What a fucked up fuckhead. You and your fucking guns. Nobody is taking your guns. But tell me why you need 30 rounds of ammunition again?

[-] -2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

Does your mother know you talk like that? Actually 20 rounds is enough for me. I don't own an AR-15.Tthe .223 round is not enough to bring down a feral hog.

Back on topic, You're sem to be assuming regulations arn't as good in Texas as other places. I don't know if that's correct or not; nor do you.

But I do agree proper regulations are important. So what are we arguing about?

[+] -5 points by justiceforzim (-17) 11 years ago

Why might a civilian need a 30 round mag? Well, it's been reported that during the "watertown shootout" the police fired 200 rounds at the bros. Result? 1 bro died reportedly from injuries when lil bro ran over him. The other one got away. Now there are our highly trained law enforcement officers shooting at 2 men who made great targets in front of their own headlights.

BTW, I think Cruz is fantastic. He's sharp, very sharp. Considering the attacks he is getting from the left, he must be doing something right!

[-] 3 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

'But I do agree proper regulations are important' - how strange. Because Republican's don't believe in regulation.

Libertarians don't believe in government. They believe in 'free markets'. Because freedom from government regulation and oversight always works out so well (ahem, financial crash).

Libertarians don't believe in government except to secure property rights. It is right wing economic anarchy. It's philosophical roots are anarchism.

There is a reason the Koch Brothers crapped out the Tea Party. Because Libertarian policies benefit the Koch Brothers.

There is a reason that the 112th Congress was one of the most unproductive sessions in history. Because Libertarians don't believe in government.

'You're sem to be assuming regulations arn't as good in Texas as other places' - No. I don't think they're good enough anywhere.

Lobbyists for big business have spent the past few decades eroding regulations, starving regulators of funding, or just ignoring them (ahem, West Texas. ahem, BP). Powell Memorandum. Buckley v. Valeo. Ringing any bells? They set the table.

The main course was served a few years later by Reagan. Regulations designed to protect the environment, the financial system, worker safety, consumer rights, labor - all eroded. Basically, if it's not profitable for the wealthy and big business - it was eroded. Tax cuts, loopholes, eroding regulation, supply side/trickle down economics designed for the wealthy. From Reagan's own budget director David Stockman - supply side economics was never anything more than a Trojan Horse to enact tax cuts for the wealthy. The Republican electorate were just the suckers for it. Still are. Slow on the uptake.



Bush Sr. rightly called all of this voodoo economics. And his own party destroyed him for it. Clinton tried to reverse some of this fiasco. Started to level off the debt. Left Bush Jr. 10 years of projected budget surpluses.

What does Bush Jr. do? He serves desert of course. To the wealthy. Massive tax cuts mostly benefitting the wealthy. The Bush Jr. tax cuts weren't implemented in order to stimulate the economy. Those tax cuts didn't provide economic growth and they never thought that they would. They knew supply side was always just a ruse (again, you Republican's are soooo slow on the uptake). The tax cuts were implemented because they were afraid that the government would pay down the debt too quickly with all the surplus that Clinton left for them. Paying down the debt would transfer dollars from taxpayers to bond owners, and erode assets that are held as savings. And who holds the most wealth in savings? The wealthy.



So we get the Bush Jr. tax cuts, then trillions of dollars for two questionable wars goes on the credit card. The debt starts to skyrocket again. The entire financial system crashes and threatens to blow up nearly all of the developed economies on the planet. And now, now - Republican's want to blame poor people for all of this.

Republican's set the course to drive up the debt. And then they blame poor people for their failed economic policies. The Koch Brothers watched all of this play out and saw great opportunity.
Because now that poor people have been successfully blamed for failed right wing economic policies, now Libertarians can dismantle government more completely then Reagan could have ever dreamed of.

Just as supply side economics was just a ruse to enact tax cuts for the wealthy, so too is 'the debt' a ruse for the Libertarian agenda of dismantling government. You people are such suckers. Jeesh. And you call me naive. Now that is funny! My God you Republican's are endlessly stupid.

30 years of mostly right wing economic policies has turned out so well. 30 years of the wealthy paying the lowest tax rates in history. 30 years of rising debt. 30 years of middle class wage stagnation.


Let's have some more of that. On steroids. Because clearly Libertarian economics is just what we need. Right wing economic anarchism is always such a fab idea!

wtf is wrong with you?

Because you are afraid that someone is going to take your gun away. You're a real fucking genius Narley.

"Yes! Let's tell them that someone will take their gun away! And we can enact more tax cuts for the wealthy and get more deregulation for big business!"

You really are their favorite kind of useful idiot Narley. Way to go. Keep up all the good work you do for the Koch Brothers.

[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

That’s a long post and I won’t try to cover each point. The truth is I don’t identify with any specific political label. However, if I had to pick a label I’d say I’m a liberal libertarian. Generally speaking smaller government is better. I don’t believe the government should babysit the people from cradle to grave. I believe in personal responsibility over the government taking care of you.

I also believe corporations ARE evil, Washington is corrupt and Wall Street is the enemy of the people. I believe in a regulated free market.

I’m not the Texas redneck, good ole boy you seem to want me to be. Seem to me we’re not really that far apart in our views?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 years ago


You don't have any guns. You lost them in a boating accident.....

[-] 2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

HA!, busted.

[-] 1 points by Buttercup (1067) 11 years ago

Are you telling me that you vote Libertarian (in other words Republican) and would rather support failed, intellectually juvenile, and morally repulsive economic policies, because social service programs are not perfect? And you're afraid some will take your gun away from you?! Are you freaking kidding me!! Unfuckingbelievable.

No system is perfect so get the fuck over it. If there are 'generations of welfare recipients' - there are complex socio-economic reasons for this.

Maybe it's because a child of poverty starts out with a near permanent disadvantage. How do you feel when you miss a meal? How do you think it feels for a child who misses a meal, or only gets good balanced meals sporadically? How do you think it will affect that childs learning in school? You would rather vote to support ending the school lunch program? When 20-30 million people cannot find full employment making a living wage? Because you are afraid someone will take you gun away? Fucking really?

How do you feel when you don't get enough rest? How do you think it affects a little kid who maybe is woken up at night by gunshots. Or is just afraid to sleep at night because of the violence he sees in his neighborhood. Or maybe he just can't sleep well because he's hungry because $1.47/meal doesn't get you much food. How do you think it will affect that childs learning? How well do you think this child is going to be educated? How stable is this child's psyche going to be when he/she grows up? I suppose it's not impossible for a child to be successful in this kind of environment. But it's alot to overcome for a little kid don't you think?

Interesting how you manage to have so much compassion for West, Texas - because you swam at the pool there. So it seems that your compassion runs about as far as your nearby swimming pool. There's a big world out there. And you are making very callous highly simplistic, careless presumptions about people having 'No incentive to look for work'. Besides that, there are not enough fucking jobs. There is only 1 job for every 4 people unemployed.

'The masses live a comfortable and secure life' - the masses have experienced 30 years of wage stagnation.

If there is a tipping point it is the result of wealth inequality. I don't think most people are fat and happy. Most people are running faster on the hamster wheel and not getting anywhere.



[-] 1 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

To call our social services imperfect is like calling Mount Everest a hill. They are a disaster of epic proportions.

You’re a bit melodramatic. Hunger is not a big problem in the US. Our social services provide food stamps, housing, school lunches and probably a dozen other hand-outs I can’t think of right off the top of my head. And there are jobs, but few American will work in the fields every day for just a few bucks, or work in a fast food joint for a few bucks. It’s easier to just take the hand-outs. I even heard that now we give out cell phones, aptly called Obama phones.

So, I maintain the only way to get this under control is to have people work for their hand-outs. Kind of like the WPA in the 1930’s. We don’t want people to go hungry, but in some way they should pay for the governments help.

Yes, life is a rat race these days. Nothing new about that. Still, America maintains one of the highest living standards in the world. Shopping is entertainment, people are drowning in debt, buying every shiny thing they see and still wanting more. Most Americans live an almost decadent life. Just look around, you can’t miss it.

IMHO, The tipping point will occur when the government has to cut back or stop the entitlements. A large portion of the US relies on these entitlements. When the music stops it will be ugly. I envision rioting on a massive scale in almost every major city. Cold, scared, hungry people are dangerous; and you may very well need a gun for survival.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 11 years ago

I hope the executives in this company are help criminally liable - but I know better

[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

If they are criminally responsible they should be held accountable. As yet they don’t know the cause.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Perhaps it would be better to talk about the terrorists that caused it, as well as those that endorse the behavior that caused it.

[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

What are you talking about? Oh, wait, nevermind. I don't want to know.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

All "righty" then.

How about negligent homicide and property destruction?

The failure to report was willfully done. Therefore it could actually be second degree murder for anyone involved.

[-] 0 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

If that turns out to be the case then I agree with you. However, your making assumptions at this point. Be patient, they'll eventually figure it out. Jumping to comcltsions doesn't help.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

It's not exactly jumping, as long as you shun FLAKESnews.


Some blame could and should be placed squarely on the shoulders of a do nothing (R)epelican't congress.


Then there's that decidedly libe(R)tarian Texas State government.


It was destruction that NEVER should have happened.

It was entirely preventable, IF those involved endeavored to do so.

But like MOST libe(R)tarains they placed profit far over people.

Of course the wack a doodles are coming out of the woodwork too. If only to distract from the truth of the level of negligence involved.


Let's blame EVERYTHING on the mooslums.....that's the ticket.

[-] 2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

So your saying the solution is to vote for the democrats?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Either quote where I said that or STFU.

You could at the very least comment on the content of the links, which show at least some level of criminal negligence involved, as well as negligence in the legislative process.

[-] 2 points by Narley (272) 11 years ago

The cause is not yet determined. I'll wait for the facts to come out rather than jumping to conclutions. You should fo the same.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 11 years ago

lol why should the 'people' show any dignity when the 'government' doesnt? its not like the government is stupid.. they knew this danger and made a clear decision that any body low life enough to live near that plant were expendable, including the children of anyone lowlife enough. why do people expect 'people' to give a flip but not the 'people' that are getting paid to give a flip? thats like expecting a child not to say 'damn' when they hear it from mom every day