2007-08-18 03:09:06 · 15 answers · asked by ballerb j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's proof that some industries need to be regulated by the government. They won't self regulate, despite what the laissez faire Republicans say. It's also evidence that industry insiders should not be in change of agencies which are supposed to regulate those industries. Bush is fond of these appointments, and what's behind them is his ideological desire to shrink government by making it more incompetent.
2007-08-18 03:11:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is further proof that the world has entered into tribulation with a lack of rapture. Just look at the the news since the beginning of the year, then say what most people say; "these things have always been with us". I say that is true, but never in this magnitude and never so much tragedy in so short a time. This is only the beginning. "One will be taken, the other left", just like the bridge collapse. Only 13 were "taken", and all the others on the bridge left.
2007-08-18 10:13:53 · answer #2 · answered by Son of David 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Let's just say that if you watch the news lately, and you notice how american workers and consumers are being impacted by a number of things, you can reasonably come to the conclusions that some policy chickens are coming home to roost. When you get the foxes watching the chicken coops, you can only have certain inevitable results.
2007-08-18 10:17:33 · answer #3 · answered by bush l 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, coming in the wake of Katrina/Rita and the food contamination alerts and the Minneapolis bridge collapse, it is an indictment of trying to do government on the cheap and of giving a pass on inspections to big businesses for the sake of profitability at the top.
2007-08-18 10:16:34 · answer #4 · answered by ash 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is proof that there needs to be greater respect for occupational health and safety. This is a case where government regulation is a must.
2007-08-18 10:46:22 · answer #5 · answered by copestir 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It may be proof that profits are much more important to mine owners than the lives of their hard working employees. Time will tell.
2007-08-18 10:18:18 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, ideology has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that we don't put enough money into programs that will regulate the safety for workers in large companies, or in making sure that our buildings, bridges, etc. are safe.
2007-08-18 10:24:20 · answer #7 · answered by Funny Girl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes its about risk,the poor, and the blind pursuit of money.
There are some mining company's that refuse to use the mining technique this operator was using, because of the inherent risks involved.
2007-08-18 10:11:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
A most interesting question. I can't wait to read all the responses, and see how people get defensive.
2007-08-18 10:13:48 · answer #9 · answered by ez f 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you saying God is punishing the US with the mining catastrophe? Or are you saying we need more regulation from the government? Your question is really vague
2007-08-18 10:12:15 · answer #10 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋