The Corporate Takeover of the United States

[Pommer]

Was that a good or bad thing when Obama did it?

::crickets::

 

[Arcangl86]

• David Bernhardt: a former gas and oil lobbyist runs the Department of the Interior.
• Andrew Wheeler: a former coal lobbyist runs the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Alex M. Azar II: a former pharmaceutical lobbyist and drug company executive runs Health and Human Services.
• Patrick M. Shanahan: a Boeing executive who once served as Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems runs the Department of Defense.
• Betsy DeVos: a billionaire who's family ranks in the top 100 wealthiest in America runs Department of Education.
• Wilbur Ross: a former Rothschild Investments employ who has investments in the auto, textile, steel, and coal industries runs the Department of Commerce.
• Steven Mnuchin: a former Goldman Sachs executive runs the Department of the Treasury.

So much for the President's campaign promise of "draining the swamp" of lobbyists and those with special interests. The corporate takeover of America looks to be almost complete.

Let's not forget Rex Tillerson, the life long oil industry worker and executive who the President somehow felt was the perfect person to be his first Secretary of State.

 

[Ringo84]

Again... would you rather have someone who has absolutely no clue how the world works?

Like Donny and his supporters? Nothing we can do about that until November of next year.
Ringo

 

[yougottabekidding]

• David Bernhardt: a former gas and oil lobbyist runs the Department of the Interior.
• Andrew Wheeler: a former coal lobbyist runs the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Alex M. Azar II: a former pharmaceutical lobbyist and drug company executive runs Health and Human Services.
• Patrick M. Shanahan: a Boeing executive who once served as Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems runs the Department of Defense.
• Betsy DeVos: a billionaire who's family ranks in the top 100 wealthiest in America runs Department of Education.
• Wilbur Ross: a former Rothschild Investments employ who has investments in the auto, textile, steel, and coal industries runs the Department of Commerce.
• Steven Mnuchin: a former Goldman Sachs executive runs the Department of the Treasury.

So much for the President's campaign promise of "draining the swamp" of lobbyists and those with special interests. The corporate takeover of America looks to be almost complete.

That almost - almost makes hiring qualified people with a business background sound bad.

But then you look at their effects and it just becomes a partisan speaking point.

 

[Ringo84]

There are people with qualified backgrounds, and then there are lobbyists who work for their industry.

However, the fact that the same people who were entranced by the "drain the swamp" propaganda are shrugging their shoulders about this corruption is duly noted. That's what happens when fake populism wins the day.
Ringo

 

[Andrew77]

If it were true that everyone could police themselves then we would in fact need no police.

Your post reeks of both hubris and ignorance.

Some reasons the EPA exists.
List of industrial disasters - Wikipedia

Superfund sites:
List of Superfund sites - Wikipedia



Relax regulations on dumping in general and remove enforcement is what I think he will do.

78 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

Trump's EPA rolls back Obama-era coal ash regulations

We can count on you to be critical on a subject you have no seeming information on and are ideologically opposed to?

Maybe when we complain you'll hand-wave it as nothing to worry about and tell us to focus on rapes and murders or something.



Were not allowed to worry about the corporate takeover of our government while there are murders and sexual assaults in the world now?

Who the heck do you think you are?

And I would agree with most of what Trump has done.

Many of the environmental regulations, as they exist, are ridiculous.

There was a story out of TN, about a decommissioned industrial area. The soil was polluted to the level that a child could eat dirt for a week, and get sick. They came in and cleaned the area until a child could eat the dirt at this site for a full month, before getting sick. But the activists and regulators continued to bicker, in order to spend almost a million dollars to clean the area until a child could eat dirt on the site for a year, before getting sick.

This is insane. No child is going to be wandering around an abandoned industrial park. Even if that child was, they wouldn't likely be cramming dirt in their mouth. And even if they did, they wouldn't be doing so for a week.... let alone a month... let alone a year.

And at one point, the Arsenic regulations, required that the levels of arsenic on water output from a mine, be lower than the natural levels in the ground. The regulations are insane.

But it is easy to make such regulations, and spend such money, when someone else is footing the bill. It's easy to make such rules, when you are in Washington DC, and it is not your state, or your business, or your job that will be ruined.

Lastly, you seem to have a strange idea that these government agencies actually do anything to prevent these disasters.

You list all these industrial disasters from Wiki, as if that makes a point. IF anything you disprove your point by listing all these disasters that happened while these government agencies exist.

Can you name a single disaster that was prevented because some government agency sent out people to stop the disaster? No. Let me help you out there... no you can't. Because they don't.

I've worked at a large number of companies. Not one time in my whole life, have I seen anyone from the government show up to inspect, or check anything. Several large manufacturing companies, two had never had any inspection of any kind, since the founding of the company.

I was at a college campus where people from various business were discussing regulations, and the speaker at the campus said his company that he had worked at his entire life, his company had only been inspect one time. He explained it was just a money grab for the government, that it was impossible to follow the hundred million Federal Regulations completely, so the inspector will find something wrong no matter what... just pay the fine, and move on.

Government regulations at the Federal level, are more of just a method for extorting money from companies that don't donate to the politicians. The politicians in government, operate it like a mafia protection racket. If you don't donate to the candidates, then all of sudden they magically start finding regulation violations. You donate money, and magically they don't.

Microsoft was a perfect example of this. Before the 1990s anti-trust investigation, Microsoft and Bill Gates, never donated a penny to politicians. Then the government started screwing with them. Almost a full year into the investigation, Bill Gates and company figured out they needed to start playing the mafia game, and sent millions to government in lobbying. Magically the investigation died out, and Microsoft was left alone. Still to this day, they pay millions in lobbying to keep government from randomly screwing with them.

That's all this is. It's about power and control, and protection money for the politicians benefit.

It's not about stopping disasters. They don't stop disasters. Government has not once stopped a disaster.

A perfect example is Walmart roasted chicken. When Walmart decided to have roasted chicken, they thought government would inspect their stores to make sure the chickens were being roasted properly and safely. A year after the roll out, they surveyed to see how many stores did the government check, and found only 2 store in all their hundreds of locations, had been checked.

Fearing a food poisoning event, Walmart invested in wireless thermometers that reported through the internet to the company, that each chicken was being roasted to the proper temperature.

That's how the real world works. This idea that Feds magically will prevent disasters, is ridiculously untrue. Even the state has more influence on how companies operate in their state, then the Feds do. We've had state inspectors come in, far more often than the Feds, which is exactly why I think the state should handle more of the regulation and oversight of companies.

The feds are just there to grab money. That's it.

 

[wing2000]

Many of the environmental regulations, as they exist, are ridiculous.

There was a story out of TN, about a decommissioned industrial area. The soil was polluted to the level that a child could eat dirt for a week, and get sick. They came in and cleaned the area until a child could eat the dirt at this site for a full month, before getting sick. But the activists and regulators continued to bicker, in order to spend almost a million dollars to clean the area until a child could eat dirt on the site for a year, before getting sick.

This is insane. No child is going to be wandering around an abandoned industrial park. Even if that child was, they wouldn't likely be cramming dirt in their mouth. And even if they did, they wouldn't be doing so for a week.... let alone a month... let alone a year.

And at one point, the Arsenic regulations, required that the levels of arsenic on water output from a mine, be lower than the natural levels in the ground. The regulations are insane.

But it is easy to make such regulations, and spend such money, when someone else is footing the bill. It's easy to make such rules, when you are in Washington DC, and it is not your state, or your business, or your job that will be ruined.

Source?

 

[Andrew77]

Source?

I assume you are asking about the dirt eating story.

I believe it was in Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", but I don't remember off-hand what chapter.

Well worth the read by the way.

 

[wing2000]

I assume you are asking about the dirt eating story.

I believe it was in Thomas Sowell's "Basic Economics", but I don't remember off-hand what chapter.

Well worth the read by the way.

Yes.

 

[FireDragon76]

Those are not lobbyists... no one that low on the totem pole.

They are executive board members. That is the kind of panel the Prez is most comfortable around.

I'm not a fan of Trump, but who else would staff those cabinet position? It's not like we have many actual experts outside those fields. It's true he could appoint academics to those positions, but in this political climate it's understandable why that hasn't happened. We don't actually live in a culture that values the opinions of academics anymore, if we ever did. Everything is about personal experience now.

 

[FireDragon76]

She also has nothing to do with coal. But she is a self-made millionaire who loves America and is our Secretary of Education who is trying to revamp our education system after a disaster of an administration with their common core and red tape and liberal pro homosexuality indoctrination.

Actually, Betsy DeVos has not been completely on board with everything the Right has demanded, especially about LGBT issues. There are still some people of conscience around that aren't merely sycophants.

As I said, I am no fan of Trump but just going into "panic mode" doesn't help. The same thing is true about looking at somebody like Mike Pence and thinking the sky is falling just because he goes to an evangelical pietist church.

If we are ever going to get beyond the current poisoned politics, not demonizing people and seeing shades of grey is the first step.

 

[FireDragon76]

Maybe the president is comfortable being surrounded by these people, but as an American citizen I'm not comfortable with people running departments that regulate the industries they have personal interests in.

That's pretty common for Republicans to do that, though. Just like Democrats often hire either people that are mavericks within industry or business, or people that have a career as activists criticizing that industry.

 

[JackRT]

There was a story out of TN, about a decommissioned industrial area. The soil was polluted to the level that a child could eat dirt for a week, and get sick. They came in and cleaned the area until a child could eat the dirt at this site for a full month, before getting sick. But the activists and regulators continued to bicker, in order to spend almost a million dollars to clean the area until a child could eat dirt on the site for a year, before getting sick.

This sounds just like a "story". The root problem was that the industries were so unregulated that the area became polluted in the first place.

 

[FenderTL5]

Can you name a single disaster that was prevented because some government agency sent out people to stop the disaster?

Anyone with any sense understands what you are suggesting is not how any of this works.
The regulations are usually the result of a disaster and preventive measures to keep it from repeating.
Now lets look at an example; The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history. In the aftermath, the fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards, including fire exits and a prohibition on locking workers into a space without an exit.
Let's look at another; The Great Trainwreck of 1918 in Nashville TN. Two passenger trains, operated by the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway ("NC&StL"), collided head-on, costing at least 101 lives and injuring an additional 171. It is considered the worst rail accident in United States history.
An investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) attributed the cause of the accident to several factors, notably serious errors by the crew of train No. 4 and tower operators, all of whom failed to properly account for the presence of the train No. 1 on the line. The ICC also pointed to a lack of a proper system for the accurate determination of train positions and noted that the wooden construction of the cars greatly increased the number of fatalities. This led to improved safety regulations on signalling as well as new protocols for the cars themselves.

So yes, we can point to incidents that have been avoided - thousands, maybe even millions of them - because of the safety regulations, these types of events have not been repeated.

 

[JackRT]

There is the simple fact of human nature and greed that makes governmental regulation so necessary. For as long as there have been people and corporations, people are motivated to cheat, to cut corners, to take chances all to turn a bigger profit. I am reminded of the case against Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California in 1993 and the role of Erin Brockovich in it. Deregulation is a major step backwards and we all know that walking backwards with your eyes closed is dangerous.

 

[Andrew77]

Anyone with any sense understands what you are suggesting is not how any of this works.
The regulations are usually the result of a disaster and preventive measures to keep it from repeating.
Now lets look at an example; The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history. In the aftermath, the fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards, including fire exits and a prohibition on locking workers into a space without an exit.
Let's look at another; The Great Trainwreck of 1918 in Nashville TN. Two passenger trains, operated by the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway ("NC&StL"), collided head-on, costing at least 101 lives and injuring an additional 171. It is considered the worst rail accident in United States history.
An investigation by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) attributed the cause of the accident to several factors, notably serious errors by the crew of train No. 4 and tower operators, all of whom failed to properly account for the presence of the train No. 1 on the line. The ICC also pointed to a lack of a proper system for the accurate determination of train positions and noted that the wooden construction of the cars greatly increased the number of fatalities. This led to improved safety regulations on signalling as well as new protocols for the cars themselves.

So yes, we can point to incidents that have been avoided - thousands, maybe even millions of them - because of the safety regulations, these types of events have not been repeated.

Right, but the idea that government makes sure those standards are followed? No. Again, you can write a million regulations until the end of time. That doesn't mean a single one of them is followed. And you don't know about it, until after the something happens.

Right now, just off the top of my head, I know of 3 companies operating nearby that are not following safety standards. Not one has had a federal inspection. And all of them have been operating that way for over a decade.

Why do you think that *AFTER* any accident they investigate and find... oh they didn't do X or didn't do Y?

How is it possible that they were not following government regulations, if regulations prevent all these problems? Because they don't.

It's like that Chinese place that was down town, where the FDA stepped in and shut the place down. They were closed one day, and opened under a new name. So much for the regulations.

By far, the biggest improvement in safety has been because of the company, not wanting to lose money. Not because of some government regulation somewhere.

Again, I've heard from a guy at a company, talking to other business people about regulations, saying because of the endless regulations, it's impossible to meet them all.

 

[Pommer]

Right, but the idea that government makes sure those standards are followed? No. Again, you can write a million regulations until the end of time. That doesn't mean a single one of them is followed. And you don't know about it, until after the something happens.

Right now, just off the top of my head, I know of 3 companies operating nearby that are not following safety standards. Not one has had a federal inspection. And all of them have been operating that way for over a decade.

Why do you think that *AFTER* any accident they investigate and find... oh they didn't do X or didn't do Y?

How is it possible that they were not following government regulations, if regulations prevent all these problems? Because they don't.

It's like that Chinese place that was down town, where the FDA stepped in and shut the place down. They were closed one day, and opened under a new name. So much for the regulations.

By far, the biggest improvement in safety has been because of the company, not wanting to lose money. Not because of some government regulation somewhere.

Again, I've heard from a guy at a company, talking to other business people about regulations, saying because of the endless regulations, it's impossible to meet them all.

Which is why we have people who go on site to make sure that the laws, (and regulations)* are being followed, and that any changes mandated by these laws and regulations are being followed...fines and court actions for scofflaws.

*Generally Congress writes a Law that sets the parameters of an Agency. That agency, in turn, (being filled with people knowledgeable in the particular field) promulgates the regulations. They also provide people and resources to “encourage” compliance.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Right now, just off the top of my head, I know of 3 companies operating nearby that are not following safety standards. Not one has had a federal inspection. And all of them have been operating that way for over a decade.

They may well have had inspections, but passed them because they made sure that safety standards were followed while the inspectors were present. If you know of companies not following standards, you can report them to the relevant regulatory body. They aren't omniscient, and rely on tips from employees and concerned citizens to know where to look.

 

[Ringo84]

Right, but the idea that government makes sure those standards are followed? No. Again, you can write a million regulations until the end of time. That doesn't mean a single one of them is followed. And you don't know about it, until after the something happens.

This is an only slightly (like, by a hair) more sophisticated argument than "Why have police? People are still doing crimes!".

Just wanted to point that out, as well as the fact that by arguing against regulation, you're just doing the bidding of megacorporations that don't give a single flip about you or your livelihood.
Ringo

 

[Andrew77]

This is an only slightly (like, by a hair) more sophisticated argument than "Why have police? People are still doing crimes!".

Just wanted to point that out, as well as the fact that by arguing against regulation, you're just doing the bidding of megacorporations that don't give a single flip about you or your livelihood.
Ringo

I completely disagree with your claim.

Eliminating police, would mean that crime would go unpunished.

Eliminating regulations, would not cause crime to go unpunished. Negligence would still be punished, with or without regulations. Industries would still strive towards fewer and fewer accidents.

Again, I pointed out Walmart put in place wifi thermometers to gauge their roasted chicken, to make sure they were cooked properly. This was done without any regulation requiring it.

Similarly, there are plenty, if not thousands of examples of other safety features that were introduced long before regulations mandated them. In fact, that is generally the standard. Most regulations are safety features that were already widely in use, that the government makes mandatory. This doesn't stop anyone, because everyone was already doing it.

It's simply to make people think "Oh without government, our savior, the big evil companies wouldn't do it!" Which is entirely false.

Just wanted to point that out, as well as the fact that by arguing against regulation, you're just doing the bidding of megacorporations that don't give a single flip about you or your livelihood.​

This is a common refrain from anyone who doesn't want, or can't, argue the facts. Instead you just do a character assassination that "You are a tool of the other side!".

In reality, most regulations today benefit the mega-corporations the most. A key example as I mentioned before, was Monsanto. A bunch of anti-Monsanto regulation hounds promoted the need to pass regulations against Monsanto. The result was, those regulations were used to shut out competition in the market, and Monsanto stepped into to take a larger share of the market, and with reduced competition, charge higher prices for their products.

Looking at the facts, not emotional opinion based on ideological talking points... the people in favor of regulation are more tools of the megacorporations, than anyone on the free-market view point, where unrestricted competition would result in lower prices and better products for the the citizens of the country.