A taste of what you fans of R. Paul want for the country

[momeNt]

“The bill puts in place new mandates; it hires new bureaucrats,” he said. “But it doesn’t properly diagnose the problem, and it grandfathers in the very pipelines that have had recent problems. It makes no sense. As a doctor, I find it offensive to rush through treatment when you haven’t diagnosed the problem properly.”

So is this thread a taste of what R. Paul haters will do to misrepresent the issues? Make claims without links to stories or any other info other than what is provided in an obviously partisan thread?

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

Edit: Hard to find a news article that actually provides that quote because many are trying to make him look like he is obstructing a reasonable law.

 

[airdata]

Don't tell me... .You're holding out for the Palin / Bachman ticket?

You're really reaching here or just trolling.

 

[Howard]

If all the gas companies involved desire this bill to be passed, there's probably something wrong with it.

Also, who knows what's actually in it?

 

[Jaskalas]

People called for tighter federal regulations of gas pipes, recognizing they're lax.

Democrats support them. *REPUBLICANS* in Congress support them. The GAS INDUSTRY supports them.

Pretty much everyone supports them. I suspect the "We like to watch gas pipe explosions" club made an exception and supports them.

One guy doesn't. Rand Paul used his power as a Senator to single-handedly block them.

His explanation: he doesn't oppose any specific part of them. He simply opposes the general notion of new regulations.

Such a regulation is fine, at the state level. If the states want to voluntarily put together a national sized group to set a national standard, voluntarily enforced on a state by state basis - then that is fine. Go do it.

Leave the federal government out of this.

They don't create the sun and the moon. Things do happen to exist without centralized planning, you just don't appreciate that. Well it's time to force you to. If that's a vote of NO on everything, then so be it.

 

[GaryJohnson]

Some insight as to why industry is behind this particular bill:

Industry is eager for Congress to pass a bill this year partly because the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is already working on new safety rules. They'd rather Congress provide direction to regulators as to what those rules should look like than leave the matter entirely up to the Obama administration.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...vEjyTw?docId=f1e4d6347d454d6a9584e6027d52a747

Also an article on the Kentucky rupture:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a360ae52248a4e14a3b52bd72b8af4b4/KY--Pipeline-Rupture/

The owner of a natural gas pipeline that ruptured in central Kentucky last week says its investigation so far has revealed that a third-party contractor was digging with a track-hoe in the vicinity of the break.

 

[sunzt]

Such a regulation is fine, at the state level. If the states want to voluntarily put together a national sized group to set a national standard, voluntarily enforced on a state by state basis - then that is fine. Go do it.

Leave the federal government out of this.

Sounds a bit inefficient. 50 different states each having their own gas pipe enforcement agencies...

What if a state doesn't want to enforce it and a pipe which connects to a neighboring state has portions of it blow up in the state because they did not want to enforce the standard? Too bad for the other state that did enforce the standard?

 

[amish]

...

 

[momeNt]

Sounds a bit inefficient. 50 different states each having their own gas pipe enforcement agencies...

What if a state doesn't want to enforce it and a pipe which connects to a neighboring state has portions of it blow up in the state because they did not want to enforce the standard? Too bad for the other state that did enforce the standard?

1 federal enforcement agency would need just as many inspectors and offices as 50 different states.

Maybe we shouldn't call it the USA anymore and just rename the country and abolish state constitutions though, because I'll be honest, this is getting a bit confusing. No other country has states like in the USA and some of them are quite successful.

It would end the federal vs state argument that's for sure.

 

[fskimospy]

1 federal enforcement agency would need just as many inspectors and offices as 50 different states.

Maybe we shouldn't call it the USA anymore and just rename the country and abolish state constitutions though, because I'll be honest, this is getting a bit confusing. No other country has states like in the USA and some of them are quite successful.

It would end the federal vs state argument that's for sure.

No, it probably wouldn't need just as many inspectors and offices. Also, industries that spanned several states wouldn't need to keep and maintain two separate sets of standards.

Maybe we should just have single sets of standards for industries that span a number of states.

 

[Jaskalas]

Sounds a bit inefficient. 50 different states each having their own gas pipe enforcement agencies...

What if a state doesn't want to enforce it and a pipe which connects to a neighboring state has portions of it blow up in the state because they did not want to enforce the standard? Too bad for the other state that did enforce the standard?

To generalize: Freedom is inefficient.

Those 50 different states could all collaborate on a single enforcement agency. The difference is that they control it, instead of having it control them. They're free to leave the group even if it's inefficient and costs them. The choice is theirs to make.

This really comes down to a matter of authority. You believe that, to be efficient, it must be top down. I disagree on the importance of the top down model.

Pipelines cross various countries all the time, those countries don't need being dictated to by a higher authority. Why do they keep their freedoms but not Americans?

Anyways... a collaborative effort CAN produce the same national agency that you aspire you create, it's just a question of its authority. To fight the top down model and encourage state's rights we can make the most of the power of the minority in the Federal government to block everything.

 

[actuarial]

So we can all agree that the company doesn't lose any money on a gas pipe explosion and has no incentive whatsoever to stop gas pipe explosions outside of regulation compliance?

Please people. Regulation ideologues can never have enough of it, but the best way to maximize shareholder value is to stop your pipes from blowing up, doesn't take a federal law.

Is the best way to maximize shareholder value to stop your cars from setting on fire?

Ford sure didn't think so.

 

[Ausm]

If all the gas companies involved desire this bill to be passed, there's probably something wrong with it.

Also, who knows what's actually in it?

That would be my guess or has some built in loophole that they can take advantage of.

 

[Craig234]

Don't hold back with the ad hominems.

Read that far. It's not an ad hominem. It's a factual description.

 

[sunzt]

To generalize: Freedom is inefficient.

Those 50 different states could all collaborate on a single enforcement agency. The difference is that they control it, instead of having it control them. They're free to leave the group even if it's inefficient and costs them. The choice is theirs to make.

This really comes down to a matter of authority. You believe that, to be efficient, it must be top down. I disagree on the importance of the top down model.

Pipelines cross various countries all the time, those countries don't need being dictated to by a higher authority. Why do they keep their freedoms but not Americans?

Anyways... a collaborative effort CAN produce the same national agency that you aspire you create, it's just a question of its authority. To fight the top down model and encourage state's rights we can make the most of the power of the minority in the Federal government to block everything.

There's a reason businesses, governments, and pretty much every successful organization runs on a top down model. In a capitalistic society inefficient organizations will die out.

Also, you cannot possibly compare situations with sovereign countries, each with their own political, economic, and military systems to this one involving US states. It's even possible that those countries have their own national standard for gas pipes or have corroborated to come up with one. The difference is that serious consequences such as wars, political ramifications, trade sanctions, or other serious consequences happen if one country decides to screw up.

It's not really about control, it's about liability and responsibility. Who is going to responsible or liable if another state decides not to participate and your state depends on a pipe in their jurisdiction? Are you going to build a separate pipe that goes around that state just to deal with that?

If you have 50 states that collaborate on a single enforcement agency then why would a state even decide to give authority to that agency if they could just walk out and decide to screw everyone else? How useful would that kind of agency even be? It's like the IAEA with its inspectors. If countries like IRAN don't want inspectors then they don't need to have them.

Besides, how will that enforcement agency be any different than a single federal agency, except without any authority? Congress appropriates money to these agencies anyway so in essence they are representing the people and states for these agencies.

 

[Craig234]

A debate of federal versus state regulation is one thing. Ideologues who have no clue about what works but simply use dogma to demand one answer are another.

These are the same people who run around saying "destroy the EPA! It hurts jobs!" and want to be taken seriously on issues. No thank you.

 

[alphatarget1]

If the gas industry supports it why dont they do it on their own? Why do they need the federal govt to tell them to do something they desire?

I think the gas industry has a vested interest in keeping their investments (pipelines) in good condition and not blow up. Bean counters at corporate only know how to cut costs without looking at the big picture.

 

[Phokus]

To generalize: Freedom is inefficient.

Those 50 different states could all collaborate on a single enforcement agency. The difference is that they control it, instead of having it control them. They're free to leave the group even if it's inefficient and costs them. The choice is theirs to make.

This really comes down to a matter of authority. You believe that, to be efficient, it must be top down. I disagree on the importance of the top down model.

Pipelines cross various countries all the time, those countries don't need being dictated to by a higher authority. Why do they keep their freedoms but not Americans?

Anyways... a collaborative effort CAN produce the same national agency that you aspire you create, it's just a question of its authority. To fight the top down model and encourage state's rights we can make the most of the power of the minority in the Federal government to block everything.

Single Payer Healthcare is generally considered to be the most efficient type of healthcare model (unless you're a stupid as fuck libertarian or republican), but how on earth is it efficient if 50 states have their own single payer healthcare plan (or not have one)? Or on the flipside, you suggesting the states maybe banding together to create a single payer system they'd all buy into, that would be impossible to get even half the states to do that. It's far more efficient for the federal government to have a national single payer plan.

 

[Mursilis]

Might be that corporations are legally bound to maximize shareholder value.

http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2...ons-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/

They aren't profit maximizing if they voluntarily go buy safety equipment with a larger price tag than cleaning up after an accident.

They aren't profit maximizing by overcompensating senior executives, but that doesn't seem to stop them.

 

[Genx87]

So is this thread a taste of what R. Paul haters will do to misrepresent the issues? Make claims without links to stories or any other info other than what is provided in an obviously partisan thread?

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...easure?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE

Edit: Hard to find a news article that actually provides that quote because many are trying to make him look like he is obstructing a reasonable law.

My my more to the story.

“I believe legislation should have open debate and votes,” Paul, R-Ky., said in a statement Wednesday. “It need not take weeks. Certainly we could spend an afternoon for the people’s elected representatives to discuss whether they got massive new regulations right.”


Reid’s spokesman, Adam Jentleson, termed Paul’s tactic “a classic tea party stunt.”

“The simple fact is that if Senator Paul stopped blocking this bill, it would sail through with overwhelming bipartisan support, and let the Senate stay focused on the most important issue to Kentuckians and all Americans: creating jobs,” Jentleson said in a statement.

The Senate’s Democratic leaders want the bill passed using a fast-track procedure — with no debate and a voice vote when many senators might not even be present — that would allow them to spend most of the dwindling time left in this session on legislation aimed at job creation.

 

[Ausm]

To generalize: Freedom is inefficient.

Those 50 different states could all collaborate on a single enforcement agency. The difference is that they control it, instead of having it control them. They're free to leave the group even if it's inefficient and costs them. The choice is theirs to make.

This really comes down to a matter of authority. You believe that, to be efficient, it must be top down. I disagree on the importance of the top down model.

Pipelines cross various countries all the time, those countries don't need being dictated to by a higher authority. Why do they keep their freedoms but not Americans?

Anyways... a collaborative effort CAN produce the same national agency that you aspire you create, it's just a question of its authority. To fight the top down model and encourage state's rights we can make the most of the power of the minority in the Federal government to block everything.

LOL WUT? You really think you could have 50 states come together on mutual consensus of anything??

 

[Genx87]

Some insight as to why industry is behind this particular bill:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...vEjyTw?docId=f1e4d6347d454d6a9584e6027d52a747

Also an article on the Kentucky rupture:
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a360ae52248a4e14a3b52bd72b8af4b4/KY--Pipeline-Rupture/

If only there was a regulation that told these people to check for lines before they started digging.

 

[DirthNader]

Read that far. It's not an ad hominem. It's a factual description.

Says the guy who quotes himself in his sig.

 

[bfdd]

All kinds of good regulation is wanted by businesses if and only if the government makes it mandatory for their competitors, too.

lol. businesses want regulations that favor them and hurt their competitors. many of the regulations we've installed for businesses over the years were specifically crafted for this reason by the bigger companies that they affect. they generally write them in a way so they can afford it and get away with it, while hurting everyone else. this happens time and time again, yet you want it to happen more. it is KILLING US, it is killing our competition. A large majority of the shit that you type out is completely backwards and stupid. Please stop being such a huge tool.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

lulz....your stretching.

 

[bfdd]

Sounds a bit inefficient. 50 different states each having their own gas pipe enforcement agencies...

What if a state doesn't want to enforce it and a pipe which connects to a neighboring state has portions of it blow up in the state because they did not want to enforce the standard? Too bad for the other state that did enforce the standard?

You and others problems is you keep thinking of the USA as one giant whole, it isn't. It's many different divided parts, 50 of them to be exact. States need to be able to compete against each other, if our competition is internal, our federal government can use proper tariffs or whatever to force other nations to compete against the states in side the USA. It would benefit us all. Lincoln killed the union by making it seem like it can never be disband, by making us think of ourselves as one giant entity, instead of many states which work together for a common good. It's sad. Federalists are fucking miserable.