“Oh, enough with the obnoxious FOX News spin. That's not what the comment or this article is about at all, and you know it. It's about protecting everyday people and the environment from those who think money and corporate status gives them the right to hurt others to further their own ends.”
“How, exactly, were people supposed to pay their bills after they lost their jobs in a Great Recession caused by ridiculous schemes (credit default swaps, anyone?) that were cooked up by many of the very same entities that are now sitting here defrauding the government and U.S. taxpayers? And then there's all the nonsense that MadHomeowner mentioned, with banks trying to boot people who actually pay their bills by claiming those payments "never arrived" or were somehow invalid.
Stop pointing the finger at the victims of fraud and illegal business practices and start blaming those who deserve it -- the fraudsters themselves.”
“You can't be serious. The copy of the birth certificate that I have is stamped 2003, even though I was born long before then. Why? Because when I moved out of state, I needed to obtain an official copy from the courthouse in the county where I was born so I that I could apply for a driver's license in my new home state. I didn't have my own copy; only my parents did, and it got misplaced over the years. This is a routine thing, and it happens all the time. It's a non-issue, just like this whole crackpot, not-based-in-reality conspiracy theory was to begin with. Also, "Whether he is a liar or not does not change that fact." What is this, FOX News?”
“I don't remember any other president being asked to produce a birth certificate. Why the double-standard for Obama? Oh wait, I know why! Because his name doesn't sound "American" enough. If his name had been Bob Smith or Tim Jones, this ridiculous, waste-of-time, crackpot conspiracy theory that had absolutely no basis in reality never would have gotten off the ground.”
“That argument would hold more water if the preferred alternative (exemption levels of $3.5 million/$7 million) actually reached a significant number of people. It doesn't. The estate tax at those levels would only reach 0.25 percent of estates.”
“As per mctarmac's request below, I'll address one of the points mary raised above: I challenge you to name one legitimate fear that conservative activists have about the future of the country that motivates them to get involved in politics. Please note that you're not allowed to list "socialism," "gay marriage will end the world as we know it," "Obama is a Nazi," or "the New World Order," because those aren't legitimate fears.”
“They could be addressed at the state level if states operated as isolated entities, with no interstate commerce and no flow of pollution beyond state lines. Unfortunately, that's not the reality of the situation. Not only that, but many businesses like auto manufacturers and utilities, though generally anti-regulatory, do prefer uniform standards for things like air pollution and public safety. State-by-state standards usually end up being an unworkable, wildly expensive patchwork of rules.”
“Sorry, but you're wrong. Article I, Section 8 clearly gives Congress the power to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to regulate interstate commerce, and Congress is well within its powers to delegate that authority to rulemaking agencies.
"General welfare" in Article I, Section 8 refers to the health, happiness, prosperity, and/or well-being of the nation and the American people, and addressing things like civil rights and environmental quality clearly falls into that definition.
The Tenth Amendment does NOTHING to modify or repeal those powers. If it did, it would read along the lines of, "The powers of Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States and to regulate commerce among the states are hereby repealed/revoked."
Taking specific sections or amendments of the Constitution and applying them individually and out of context without acknowledging how they interact with the rest of the document is foolish and, frankly, dangerous. It gives rise to false notions about how the Constitution works and the governing authority that the Founders wrote into the document. That, in the end, does a great disservice to our fellow citizens and the nation, and it needs to stop, now.”
“Except that the free market has shown time and time again that it IS incapable of providing safe goods and foods to people. If it was capable of doing these things, there wouldn't be widespread salmonella outbreaks in eggs or peanut butter. There wouldn't be massive E. coli outbreaks in spinach, hamburger, and other foods. Companies wouldn't allow lead and cadmium to be used in children's jewelry. Companies wouldn't manufacture faulty cribs that collapse and kill infants.
Of course, if the free market was capable of policing itself and providing safe goods and foods to people, things like this would likely still happen, as no one is perfect and mistakes are inevitable. However, companies and the free market wouldn't intentionally allow them to keep happening or intentionally cover up the incidents.
Unfortunately, this type of behavior, of turning a blind eye when things go wrong in order to protect the bottom line, is what currently typifies industry, Big Ag, and the free market today. That's why things like this are called market failures. And if the free market is unwilling or unable to step in and prevent things like this from occurring, someone has to. Just who do you propose to take on those duties?”
“All right. So are corporations going to voluntarily keep pollution out of your air and water? Are they going to voluntarily test your food to make sure it's free from contamination? Are they to going to voluntarily make sure that children's toys are free from lead, cadmium, and other toxics? Are they all going to voluntarily disclose all the chemicals they use and emit? Are they going to voluntarily make sure that your car is safe to drive? These entities certainly haven't had a good track record on preventing and adequately responding to such market failures before; why should we suddenly trust them to do the right thing now?”
LouGots on Sep 25, 2010 at 06:59:40
“Private enforcement of our intersts regarding these concerns is accomplished through the tort system. It has to be done one way or another: government bureaucracy or trial lawyers, take your pick. It can't be left to the robber barons.”
flyovermark on Sep 24, 2010 at 17:33:17
“...and these issues could not be addressed at the State level instead of the federal level? Corporations are a State entity, why shouldn't their regulation be a State function?”
“Except that Article I, Section 8, delegates far more powers to Congress than the three listed above, including:
"To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
"To make ***all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers***, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So yes, one of the main duties of Congress (note that Article I, Section 8 applies to Congress, NOT the entire federal government, as in, "The Congress shall have the Power...") is to provide for the common defense. However, another main duty of Congress is to provide for the general welfare of the United States. "Welfare" in that clause refers to the health, happiness, prosperity, and/or well-being of the nation and the American people. Because pollution negatively impacts people's health and well-being, and therefore negatively impacts the general welfare of the United States, Congress was well within its powers to create an agency designed to address those problems, and that agency is the EPA.”
“And don't forget that they have one of the lowest levels of divorce in the nation, despite being a "hotbed" of liberalism and the first state to fully legalize same-sex marriage. It's almost as if people in Massachusetts actually understand the meaning of "family values."”
“Maybe corporations should spend their money doing things that will actually help the economy. There are 15 million unemployed people in this country right now. Wouldn't it be wonderful if these companies created some jobs with that extra money they've obviously got to throw around instead of wasting it on politics?”
EthosLogosPathos on Aug 20, 2010 at 18:54:45
“Why do you consider it a waste? Obviously, they thought they had something to gain by supporting him with their contributions. Possibly, he's the more likely winner and they are trying to buy influence.
This happens every second of every day in politics. Obviously, the companies arent supporting him for his views on gay marriage.”
Johnny Boa on Aug 20, 2010 at 18:07:30
And they should start to pay the normal salaries of their employees”
ChristianEcon.com on Aug 20, 2010 at 18:01:52
“Then they couldn't leverage workers to do more for less. Capitalism dictates it.”
“She's got $300 left to her name. How, exactly, is she supposed to finance a move? Should she wave a magic wand and expect the $1,500-$3,000 cost of an average move to be paid for? Or maybe she should just load all of the expenses onto a high-interest credit card. The banking tycoons would love that, but it wouldn't do her or the economy much good.
As for who to blame for this mess, there are certainly a lot of different actors who helped cause and exacerbate this mess, but those laid off or fired (due to budget cuts or companies using the recession as a convenient excuse to cut jobs) aren't at fault. When corporations are sitting on a $1.8 trillion reserve and aren't creating jobs, well, it's pretty clear there's at least one big culprit in our ongoing jobless recovery, and it's not Ms. Ortiz or anyone else who has been slapped around by the economic collapse that began in 2007.”
“Actually, she was unjustly forced to resign because the White House and the media refuse to learn lessons from the multiple times they've been duped by the selective video editing skills of attention-loving con artists. But hey, why split hairs?”
I'm curious about something. How is protecting the American people from air pollution, water pollution, food contamination, children's products contamination, out-of-control Wall Street types, mine explosions, and oil spill catastrophes "government controlling every aspect of our lives"? Are you suggesting that we all have the scientific and technical capabilities to do all of those things individually? Are you saying that we should rely on corporations to protect us? Are you hinting that businesses will self-police and ensure that our water is safe to drink, our air is safe to breathe, our food is safe to eat, and our children's toys are safe for them to play with?
Those are some pretty striking assumptions, ones that aren't backed by any hard evidence. Instead, it sounds like we should just have faith in the free market to solve all of our problems. Unfortunately, the market failures pointed out above are just that -- market FAILURES. Businesses and the free market FAILED to prevent or solve those problems. and they FAILED to protect the American people. So what are we to do? Just shrug our shoulders and let them get away with it?
One other thing -- America isn't a free society because of our businesses. America is a free society because of the Constitution and the people's belief in democracy.”
hrpmap on Jul 21, 2010 at 15:50:27
“Let's see, food contamination, I stopped eating spinich salad, ground beef, bell peppers, etc at least fresh, cooked okay. Current FDA systems are reactive not proactive. The gulf oil spill happened while bueaurcrats watched porn on computeres wew provided, and got paid for it. Poison in imported kids toys, imported kids clothing.”
“Except...there is no DNA evidence and there is no independent witness. Also, the story above makes no mention of a video. Let's not be making things up now.
Also, anyone who demands $1 million to tell her story to any media outlet, especially one like the National Enquirer (aka "that ragsheet," as my mother was fond of calling it when I was growing up) is suspect at best.”
1. How come people like you told others that it WASN'T OK to criticize government during the Bush II administration, but now suddenly you think it's perfectly acceptable? Before you try to fit others with the hypocrisy shoe, make sure it doesn't also fit your own foot.
2. Matthews' special wasn't about going after people who criticize government. It was about people who criticize government using lies and preaching messages of extremism, hatred, and violence.
3. The last time I checked, it was still perfectly acceptable to criticize government. I've been doing so for months on issues like the poor response to the BP spill, the lack of repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA, the lack of passage of ENDA, the lack of a comprehensive and sane climate and energy bill, the lack of a Manhattan Project-style effort to break this nation's fossil fuel addiction, and so forth. Don't assume that because people are raising issues rationally and not looking like jackbooted thugs that they aren't criticizing government.”