Current or modern politics in the United States

[jumbo prawns]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Yeah I was thinking that the father of the 3 year old girl who died from eating tainted meat from Federated probably found much solace in the President of the companies position that they didn't need to be monitored by the Government because the father could sue his company. Damn do gooders!

The problem we currently have is that one side wants an effective, well run Federal government and the other side seems to wants little to no federal government at all..

There are lots of examples of countries with nonexistent or completely ineffective federal governments... Most of them look a lot like Somalia.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

The problem we currently have is that one side wants an effective, well run Federal government and the other side seems to wants little to no federal government at all..

I still think we are over legislated not so much because of responses to new issues but rather by the almost steadfast refusal to get rid of any existing legislation even if it no longer makes any sense. This doesn't tend to effect individuals as much as businesses, ie: there is amazing number of regulations that reference the legalities of accepting or cashing cheques.... what was the last time anyone wrote a cheque at a store? Yet a business can be in violation of consumer law if it does not have a practice in place to manage dozens of meaningless practices. Thus my thought that every time a new law comes into effect the body introducing it should have to find at least an equivalent law to kill. Otherwise we continue down this road where only lawyers and civil servants seem content.

However on the individual side it is rather different since chemicals, GMOs, bio-chemical, and of course the worst... Financial Practices can have a massive effect upon them and these are the areas that 'one party seems to believe should be ignored because when did a Corporation ever puts its profits ahead of the health of the people'. Unfortunately much of these issues stem from a 1950's business model mentality when consumers for the most part knew the actual person selling them items like food and that personal relationship set up a social contract where the butcher didn't toss his tainted beef into a chlorine vat because he wasn't some faceless executive but the man who sold the meat to the mother and waved to the little girl who held the mother's hand.

I get why conservatives longingly think back to those days but that world doesn't exist anymore. Fish sticks coming from China where chickens are fed while standing on screening over water ponds such that their excrement becomes the food that the fish then eat. Republican State Senates starting to introduce legislation to ensure that it is illegal to secretly video the inside of an animal processing plant just to ensure that the population remains clueless of what they are eating. The Congress, both parties, redefining pizza sauce as a vegetable to get around US nutritional standards. They all speak to a betrayal of that social contract when one could somewhat trust the foods/drugs/chemicals you purchased.

Instead it has been replaced with caveat emptor where literally the presented belief is that a company would never do a bad thing because it might hurt business when the result is to pay a fine or a settlement and then have a non-disclosure clause so the corporation may very well continue on with the bad behaviour.

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

There are lots of examples of countries with nonexistent or completely ineffective federal governments... Most of them look a lot like Somalia.

Everyone hates a Government body until they find themselves in need of it.

[jumbo prawns]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Instead it has been replaced with caveat emptor where literally the presented belief is that a company would never do a bad thing because it might hurt business when the result is to pay a fine or a settlement and then have a non-disclosure clause so the corporation may very well continue on with the bad behaviour.

The said truth is that over and over there is ample evidence that when given the opportunity to do what is right, or to protect the innocent, many corporations have chosen to take chances, cut corners and endanger the public. And when the fur really flies there are few if any consciences and the "we the people" bail them out.

On the insanity of government managing regulations, my favorite has to be the Republican congressman who recommend eliminating any regulation that restaurant employees need to wash their hands after taking a dump. But only if that restaurant posts signs stating that this was their policy. Of course the posting of signs would require a regulation, and the enforcement of that sign regulation would likely be just as hard if not harder to police then the wash your hands policy.

Before Mr Fats thinks that isn't true I'll post a link,
http://www.joeydevilla.com/2015/02/0...-the-bathroom/

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

I still think we are over legislated not so much because of responses to new issues but rather by the almost steadfast refusal to get rid of any existing legislation even if it no longer makes any sense. This doesn't tend to effect individuals as much as businesses, ie: there is amazing number of regulations that reference the legalities of accepting or cashing cheques.... what was the last time anyone wrote a cheque at a store? Yet a business can be in violation of consumer law if it does not have a practice in place to manage dozens of meaningless practices. Thus my thought that every time a new law comes into effect the body introducing it should have to find at least an equivalent law to kill. Otherwise we continue down this road where only lawyers and civil servants seem content.

I still see people on occasion writing checks at the grocery store.

But I have an idea for you. If you really want to reduce regulation of businesses, how about we do something to reduce or remove the the laws requiring boards of directors to place making profits for shareholders above the public's health and safety?

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

On the insanity of government managing regulations, my favorite has to be the Republican congressman who recommend eliminating any regulation that restaurant employees need to wash their hands after taking a dump. But only if that restaurant posts signs stating that this was their policy. Of course the posting of signs would require a regulation, and the enforcement of that sign regulation would likely be just as hard if not harder to police then the wash your hands policy.

Before Mr Fats thinks that isn't true I'll post a link,
http://www.joeydevilla.com/2015/02/0...-the-bathroom/

I recall seeing that when it came out. As you point out "remove the policy of forcing employees to wash their hands" because policies are BAD... but then require a new policy to indicate to the public the status of the non-adherence to the old policy. You got to love Republicans or Jon Stewart would have no material at all.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by DTravel

I still see people on occasion writing checks at the grocery store.

I see people using Bitcoin. There are no regulations for that? But I will accept your challenge on this and return with this; cheque acceptance protocols were based on a time when the Government was in the business of sending out cheques whereas now it utilizes direct deposit. The policies associated with cheque acceptance were based on the premise that banks or grocery stores, (or other equivalent operations), were not legally allowed to demand a surcharge on a Federal/State/Municipal cheque thereby diminishing the value of the cheque, (the idea behind it was that the concept behind the surcharge was to cover the cost of the percentage of cheques that were NSF even though Government cheques were guaranteed). Once the Government stops issuing cheques as a standard process why have a whole pile of legislation protecting a process that no longer exists?

Originally Posted by DTravel

But I have an idea for you. If you really want to reduce regulation of businesses, how about we do something to reduce or remove the the laws requiring boards of directors to place making profits for shareholders above the public's health and safety?

Okay you have gone a little off the mark here Comrade. But heck let's grab our hammer and sickle and go down this road.

There is a philosophy within macro economics called Sentinel Theory, (and no the Sentinels are not red and hunt down mutants in their spare time), where for an economic democracy to function it must have flexible constructs within it that step up to protect society from those forces that through their own blind arrogance can damage both the society and ultimately themselves. This is achieved via necessity driven through the current climate of public sentiment; ie: right now the Sentinels are being denied their role in monitoring the Financial Industry due to the Republicans introducing legislation that frees the banks up for further black pool and derivative trading which on its own, (insane as it is), is reasonable BUT fails because they have also returned the taxpayer guarantees if there is a failure.

On the surface that sounds so typically Republican but it isn't. Republicans through their past actions would be fine with the black pools and the derivative markets but the idea of putting taxpayer liability would be unacceptable; that is their application of the Sentinel. The Democrats had Dodd-Frank where their response was "no... do not gamble with these instruments if you expect the use the Fed as a fix for failure. That was their Sentinel.

So to answer your accusation that I somehow support evil corporations your position is unworkable. You are proposing that somehow those within the institution behave as both practitioner and Sentinel and that is impossible. It is the job of the CEO and the board to operate in a manner that achieves the highest return to the stockholders. Do not confuse the actions of some of the new companies as being indicative of general behaviour or even of those companies ten years down the road. When you are an Apple or a Facebook the shareholders just love you and besides who cares if you are getting 1424% vs. 1422% return? Mind you we applaud Apple for kicking the Governor of Indiana for legislation that might be anti-gay but we don't really worry about Apple and its prime subs operating slave labour in their Chinese factories, (especially hard for the Sentinels to operate beyond their host border).

What you are suggesting is legislation to force companies to behave ethically at its Mission Statement level. How the hell do you do that? If that is the case shouldn't McDonalds announce during its next Board Meeting that it is closing down since it realizes that its policies and targeted practices contribute to obesity in children and diabetes in the black community? Who is going to set up those standards? The same people that believe that tomatoes, sugar, salt, fructose, citric acid, sodium glutamate, starches and ethoxyquin 1 equates to a vegetable, (pizza sauce)?

So I get your outrage. I just don't know how you would implement it at that level.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Everyone hates a Government body until they find themselves in need of it.

People take for granted what good governance provides, and are too easily swayed by the complaints of those who they regulate.

The man who owns a slaughterhouse has a valid, but purely selfish, reason to bitch about "government regulations"; the consumer who buys chopped meat at the supermarket-- [s]he is well served by those "regulations" and "pesky bureaucrats".

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

I was responding to your reply when I challenged you on pro-right statement which is why I replied again that if you think it is too difficult to address both sides then you should merely indicate that you are ideologically driven to the conservative side.

Most posters here are pro one side or the other. I am usually defined as a leftie when in fact I am just anti-stupid and historically since the CNN Wolf Blitzer Republican Presidential debate back in 2008 when almost all the candidates put their hand up to concur that they believed in Creationism and not Evolution the Republicans seem on a never ending quest to publicly elicit ever more stupid things I tend to be pointing them out more often than their counterparts. That said we do a disservice to the issue when we simply put forth the current talking points or catch phrases as if that means anything other than to define the poster as someone worthy of being filtered out.

This site is currently pretty lucky in that the lackeys from either ideology do not flood it so there is actually room for discussion. statements. So you read a story on a newspaper website and consider commenting only to realize that after 45 minutes there are already 1200 comments. It is ironic that with more free speech that the end result is actually the cessation of the practice.

This is why I tend to be tougher on those who just make a blanket statement.

I don't think I am that right driven but I admit I am usually to the centrist of the right. There are some to the left policies I will support though.
This site is not lucky, it is fairly free because of good moderation from Mal, Max, Estreeter, and scoundrel. I try to not remove posts from threads where I post in a lot unless they are so egregious that I feel I can do nothing else.
As to blanket statements once in a great while they are appropos.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

The said truth is that over and over there is ample evidence that when given the opportunity to do what is right, or to protect the innocent, many corporations have chosen to take chances, cut corners and endanger the public. And when the fur really flies there are few if any consciences and the "we the people" bail them out.

On the insanity of government managing regulations, my favorite has to be the Republican congressman who recommend eliminating any regulation that restaurant employees need to wash their hands after taking a dump. But only if that restaurant posts signs stating that this was their policy. Of course the posting of signs would require a regulation, and the enforcement of that sign regulation would likely be just as hard if not harder to police then the wash your hands policy.

Before Mr Fats thinks that isn't true I'll post a link,

Ohh JP you wound me to my soul. I have heard about this and think it is one of the stupidest political thoughts to ever come out of the empty spaces in the pols heads. Come on man just because I lean right doesn't mean I am blind to stupidity.
As I have posted before I think that almost every big business is just out for the most profit. Screw the public, screw the workers, just increase the bottom line. A couple of people get hurt or killed, hey there millions more. How right is that.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

People take for granted what good governance provides, and are too easily swayed by the complaints of those who they regulate.

The man who owns a slaughterhouse has a valid, but purely selfish, reason to bitch about "government regulations"; the consumer who buys chopped meat at the supermarket-- [s]he is well served by those "regulations" and "pesky bureaucrats".

Mark O'Mara, counsel for George Zimmerman, kind of summed it up when he said "everyone is certain about the need for a harsh legal response until they or one of their family finds themselves in the legal system. Then suddenly mitigating factors all become important and valid."

I figure this is a mix. The slaughterhouse owner is all about total freedom until the father of the child that died eating his tainted meat comes for retribution and then he wants the Government to protect him.