Rush to Enact a Safety Rule Obama Opposes »
Posted By engineer 1 year ago in News
The Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama , that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
2956 Views Share Story 25 Comments Report
Submitted By:
engineer
Hi
My background is Biomedical engineering with an MBA As you know from all my comments where I almost stand politically. I have loads of ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 42 (view all)
-
-
100%
paramale1 year ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again the Bush Administration shows whose side they are on, and its not the American people's side. After 8 years of Republican efforts to make the life of the average American as miserable as possible to make the upper crust richer, it will be so refreshing to have someone who cares about the people first back in power.
Reply -
-
0%
voiant12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For six years we had prosperity, only the last two years has all hell happen since the Democrats took over the Congress. Tell me one thing that Obama Moma done while in Congress??? You join the other non thinkers to come along with the agenda that has been preached to you in the last few months.
Reply -
8%
voiant12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For 6 years we had prosperity, only the last two years since the democrats have gain power we have slid downward. Tell me one thing that Oboma moma has done in Congress.
Reply
Also, you need to know that Bush kept quite the stock pile of nuk products that came out of Uraq, the media had kept it quite and Bush did also until all the nuk stuff was out of Iraq, he took it on the chin for the security of this country.-
-
100%
Tangent00112 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The 'prosperity' to which you refer was largely artificial and restricted to the walled garden of Wall St. While the stock market rocketed to the 14,000 mark, jobs were being lost, benefits were being cut, and wages remained largely stagnant. The latter part of the Clinton administration and the first several years of the Bush saw the build-up of sub-prime mortgages which led directly to the mortgage crisis and Wall St. melt-down we see today.
Reply
Much of the blame rests at the feet of deregulation. In particular, the gradual Clinton-era weakening and Bush-era abandonment of protections provided under the Glass-Steagall Act. This removed the barriers to banks being able to merge with insurance companies, effectively re-creating the same robber-baron scenario that lead to the Great Depression (the reason Glass-Steagall was enacted in the first place).
-
-
11%
susanlea12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Folks, our unemployment is STILL lower and our interest rates are STILL lower, and we have been safe for past 7 years. When Clinton left office, both unemployment and interest rates were higher. Also.....Democrats are running Washington, and have for past several years. You seen anything come from them? They are allowing the country to go to hell while they sit in congress and complain about everything but their behaviour. Tighten your seat belt because they will jack up the interest rates and the unemployment. Democrats love to cry and do nothing about the situation. I left the party because its a party of crazies to the left.
Reply-
100%
jordan1112 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999. It is now 6.5. 1,2 million jobs were lost this year, as of October. Here...from the government;http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit....
Reply
You think we were 'safe' under bush? How do you reconcile 9/11? How do you spin that he ignored the warnings?
You do realize that those ridiculously low interest rates erode the value of savings, with inflation being higher than the rates can keep up with? You do realize that those low interest rates devalue our dollar?
You do realize that republicans have stopped every effort democrats have made in Congress by initiating the filibuster? You do realize that bush vetoes all the democrats bills that do get through? You do realize the Senate doesn't have the votes to stop the filibusters and the vetoes? NO? Well you do now. -
100%
epiphannyy12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Under the Clinton administration we were financially secure as a country. The days of Republicans claiming they are the "fiscally responsible" party are LONG gone. Under Bush, the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS ran amok, squandering more than any previous Congress EVER did with nothing substantial (except debt) to show for it.
Reply
He left office with a SURPLUS in the budget. What will the budget that Obama inherits have?
Unemployment is actually higher today than it has been since the great depression. The percentage points are misleading because they only count those actively receiving unemployment benefits. They don't factor into the equation those whose benefits have run out, but still have no job. There are statistics that have been compiled in the last couple of years that do take these numbers into account and show unemployment is at its highest, countrywide, since the 1930's.
Plus, the employment that is out there today doesn't match the employment under the Clinton administration or prior. Bush has not only allowed outsourcing, but encouraged it through tax breaks, etc, taking well paying jobs out of America and replacing them with jobs at WalMart and McD's.....taking a job that paid $20/hr or more and replacing it with a job paying $7/hr or less. So the job "growth" that Bush supporters try to claim is misleading as well. Its only growth if the standard is maintained or increased, not bottomed out as we saw during the Bush years.
All this is to say that the country was MUCH better off under Clinton than it has become under Bush. Even the longtime Republicans in government have admitted this to be true. Those who actually KNOW how the country works, liberal and conservative alike, agree on this fact. That is why the Republican party is scrambling to regain its equilibrium. It wouldn't surprise me to see a new 3rd party emerge from this mess...with the old-guard Republicans breaking off and forming a new party as they leave the brain-dead Palin crowd behind. If they don't do something the days of the Republican party are numbered, and that wouldn't be good for the country as a whole. We need a multiple party system to keep balance in the government and prevent a monarchy (or dictatorship) from ever taking hold. We've seen the closest thing America has had to that over the past eight years. I hope seriously that we ALL learned the lesson from it so it won't happen again. -
100%
Dionys12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and we have been safe for past 7 years."
Reply
Well. Aside from 9/11, which was on Bush's watch despite numerous warnings..
We've also been safe from being hit by a big pizza pie from the sky. But that has just as much to do with Bush as the rest of our safety.
-
-
0%
susanlea12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is a do nothing but he knows how to find radical and terrorist friends. He is surrounding himself with Clinton folks because his transition team is calling the shots. Obama wanted the position, NOT the work that comes with it. He will NOT have 200K in the rose garden listening to his speeches. He will be surrounded by about a dozen people daily that have access to him...that was NOT in his plans. He is bringing on the Clinton team to run the country....Obama is a do nothing psychopath that has a avery ugly inside wife. She had a makeover, but eventually the real Michelle will come out...she is racist and an American hater...just like Wright. Look at Wright and his teachings and you see Obama and the Michelle Pig. She is a pig in a silk dress, but still a pig and he has never been vetted. People refuse to vet him, and the media chose him. I could care less what happens to Obama. He is evil in my opinion. I have always seen evil from day one, and folks, I was a democrat. Obama has not been honest with the public.
Reply -
-
100%
ETproductions12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If there is a dunderheaded thing to do, George W. Bush is the man to find it and insist it must be done.
Reply
Safety rules should ALWAYS work just backwards of what Bush is pressing for. You should never have to prove something is dangerous before abandoning its use. Safety can only be ensured by requiring that you prove something is safe before allowing it. -
0%
shapaug12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More democrat lies and misinformation. Nobama. I know of no comapany that puts themselves or the people who work for them at risk. It just stupid to creat another government anti job program. Democrats just want to spread the corruption. Obama wants to kill jobs and screw us on energy. This crap about protecting workers is just bull. Show me the abuse right now. Who, what, where. Democrats are good at lying and talking points.
Reply-
100%
Tangent00112 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Need a shammy cloth for those Wilsonian blinders of yours? Corporations put their workers at risk all the time if they can get away with it. Not ALL corporations, mind you. Companies that outsource labor to countries with lax safety and labor standards are the worst. Can't get away with child labor because the US laws are too 'stringent'? Outsource to Indonesia!
Reply
US metal-crafting companies are not required to supply their welders with respirators, so they don't. As a result, more and more welders are becoming ill from manganese poisoning from the burning welding rods.
It wasn't until 1969 that protections were put in place to protect miners from black lung disease, and Boy Howdy! how the coal industry fought it! In fact it is the extreme exception rather than the rule when an industry acts before the government in regards to worker protections.
-
-
100%
sbestpa12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
voiant Demonstrates a comon ignornace of the American political system. Although the democratic partyholds a simple majority in congress, they have not "controlled congress" at any point in during the Bush administration, or the Clinton administration for that matter. While the congress can pass laws by simple majority vote, the president (Bush) can veto said law. In order to over-ride a president's veto, congress requires a much higher pecentage of votes that simple majority. The democratic party has not held enough seats to accomplish this, and thus has never had the power to enact change. You must have skipped American government in College.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent00112 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course the big disconnect with these folks is that they paint the Democrat Congress as 'do-nothing', yet they simultaneously blame the Democrat Congress for the economic downturn. How can ANY Congress be responsible for the economy when they haven't done anything?
Reply
I've asked this before, and never received a response: Which policies have the Democrats put in place over the past two years that caused the economy to go south? Coincidence is NOT causation.
-
-
100%
epiphannyy12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
January 20th cannot come soon enough.
Reply
What seriously amazes me is the number of people in this country who still actively support this idiot. What GOOD has he done while in office? Has there been anything in that category? Not that I can remember in the whole of his eight years. And that is really saying something.
I wasn't a Reagan or Bush Sr. fan, but their entire time in office wasn't a complete bust. They both did things that they could and should be commended for.
But W? The only thing I hear cited in his honor is the claim of "keeping us safe" but, hellooooooo....we suffered the worst attack in all of history (for us or the world as a whole) under his watch while he sat stunned in an elementary school reading My Pet Goat instead of responding. He never really even attempted to preempt the attack that he had full warning of, nor did he make any serious effort to bring those responsible (bin Laden, et al) to justice. He, instead, exploited the situation and everyone's fears to wage his own personal war. As a result, he's destroyed this country. He's allowed it to financially implode. He's fostered a resentment between both sides of the isle to the point we're more divided today than we were just prior to the Civil War. He has seriously damaged our country, both domestically and internationally. Yet, he still has supporters.
Its totally mind boggling. -
100%
muzapidge12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the end, every President leaves office wealthy, takes care of his "friends" and goes on into to the sunset (to still make more money) We, the people, are always and will forever be in the trenches, used when the polticos need something to further their cause. The only difference between our founding fathers and todays politicians is that we are now privy to their doings...Kennedy, Clinton, Bush 1 & 2, Nixon, Johnson, Obama....the list of of those who have NEVER suffered the real world of living in the USA.
Reply -
-
100%
mikeywes12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Eight years of total incompetence, arrogant 'let them eat cake' trickle down economics and a foreign policy that took all of the worst of Viet-Nam and shoved it down the throats of the rest of the world. What more could we expect from these bozos...jail them
Reply -
100%
zjackson22012 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems to me that Bush is doing everything he can to do as much damage as he can before he leaves office. To me, he appears to be a vindictive, spiteful, vicious bastard, pure and simple. It's like a child, who kicks over a sand castle because the other kids won't let him put the top on the structure. "We" didn't like how he handled his presidency, so now "We" will catch all hell. The only people Bush ever concerned himself with were the rich and business. Under his watch, the rich got richer and business got bigger and wealthier until their little house of cards fell down. Now "We" have to pay for it. I for one and so very, very, very glad that the curtain is finally falling on this tragic-comedy. Obama will have his hands filled. Bush will make sure of that.
Reply -
-
-
100%
era12 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
History will judge the Bush administration and it won't be pretty.
Reply
They are gulity of malpratice on a huge scale.
It will take years to recover. Obama has appointed some of the best people around for the job to undo the damage.
It won't be easy
-
-
100%
ssgchester-6312 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anyone care about the working Joe who has to work with this stuff? Seems those who want it passed aren't the ones having to handle the stuff.
Reply
How about as part of that new rule they want, we change it to where those who want it passed have to go work with it for a year.
And just to make it even sweeter, make it where their spouse and kids have to work with it for one year also.
Seems just, doesn't it? -
100%
ssgchester-6312 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Anyone even care about the person who has to work with this stuff?
Reply
I think we should amend this rule/rules to where those who want it passed have to work with these chemicals for one year. And just to sweeten it even more, their spouses and kids have to work with it for one year as well.
Then let's see how bad they want this new rule. -
100%
alrock61112 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess I now understand the Bush doctrine.. bring down our safety standards, industrial pollution standards, human rights standards, labor costs, and our economy.., down to the lowest of the 3rd world countries. That way the super rich don't have to pay transport costs for CHEAP import products from countries with NO safety, NO industrial pollution controls, NO human rights standards, and poverty level wage force. Gee George, thanks for pointing that Republican Ideal out to us !!
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.