Read this! You kids will not be able to work on your farm anymore!!

[chickened]

Nobody really knows why chickened says the things he does but I can tell you it has nothing to do with Oregon. Listening to Rush every day can really distort one's perception of reality.

Rush Limbaughs' bank account is a reality, so I take what you say as a compliment.

 

[chickened]

I usually try to respond to your ridiculous statements with a statement that is even more ridiculous. This time, you have me beat. There is absolutely no statement that is more preposterous then whatever you said. But if you would like to know the health of the job creators in this country just take a look at the stock market and corporate profits. But let's run um out!! Maybe you will figure it out that the "job creators" are not interested in creating more jobs. They figured out that they can make more profits with much less people and those jobs will not be coming back.

And why do you suppose that is? Maybe because the business climate is better elsewhere? hmm...? Cheaper labor? It is most obvious with the few remaining unions they have priced themselves out of a job and the only ones remaining are government jobs and the ones the government bails out... the writing is on the wall man you just have to look at it to read it unions are dying from greed. The state of oregon has been on a wage freeze for 3 years because they are broke.

Why do you think business moves to other countries or off shore? because they hate the people here? give me a break it is the poor business climate from ridiculous rules like this one for example combined with the threat of taxing the rich which really will not fix anything because the rich do not lose it has been that way since the beginning of time and arrogant little Barry thinks he can change that? no way he is in a dream.

And Don a little reality check here for you the rich are creating jobs just not here. Made in China ring a bell?

 

[chickened]

Chick Chick Chicky....was not referring to you... I was referring to the article you quoted as being the ramblings of imbeciles. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. However, I do know how to read Federal Regulations and for better or worse, some regulation to protect children is necessary.

Who are they protecting the "children" from the parents or the employers they desire to work for?

 

[redhen]

I dont know... but what i DO know is,..several businesses have left our small town area(not just my town.. but the surrounding mill towns also..) and relocated over seas...
My town used to be know for its mills,... actually my family came from Vermont because of the mills and jobs available here..
But many of the businesses have gone over seas now.. little by little they all shut down..
I'd say there is a reason for that.. not exactly sure WHAT that reason is..... but its a reality and it is happening..
Just ask the folks that worked there for 30 years and then lost their jobs..

 

[WooingWyandotte]

Sometimes I wonder if I'll be able to pet my goat in ten years.

 

[chickened]

If the Obamas' and their labor secretary really want to protect our children and their children and their children... they should quit putting them in debt.

 

[zzGypsy]

And ZZ, it would probably be a good idea if before you give those governmental officials a piece of your mind that you made a small attempt to figure out what you are talking about because, in your case, you are really not even close. However, I really would love to see a copy of your letter (or whatever) and the response.

from their own press release:

Quote: not farms owned by their families... but by their parents. that language is specific and excludes grandparents, aunts, uncles. these things are not generalities, they're legal terms with specific meanings and they have legal consequences.

from their own press release:
Quote: the businesses I was specifically talking about are livestock auctions and stockyards.
there is an exemption for kids working on their parent's farm. auctions and stockyards are not farms.

I have spent a great deal of my time parsing the wording of regulations and laws in california... and nit-picking the details of exactly what was in the law... and I've had to spend a *lot* of money on lawyers for the privelege. while the subject I was addressing was not farm-child employment, I have been personally affected by the unintentional (or perhaps intentional) wording of laws where the proponents have said "oh that's not what it means" and "that's not what it's intended for" and "it'll never be used for that."

when a regulatory agency issues a press release, they're telling you how they intend to use the regulation and the law. the press release is clear - no children working in livestock auctions.

I know from personal experience that it doesn't always matter what the wording is, the regulation can be used to prosecute people who are not in violation of the detail of the words. victory is expensive and not guaranteed.

and I can also tell you from personal experience that it doesn't always matter what the stated intent is, if the words can be interpreted in a different way, that way can and will be applied to some pour soul who will be "made an example of."

no need to share my letters with you, what would be the point?

and no need to share the responses either, I can tell you what they'll look like...
"thank you for contacting me to share your opinions. I want you to know I've always been a strong supporter of farm rights and blah blah blah"
interpret that as "I already agree with you."

or
"thank you for contacting me to share your opinions. I want you to know that while I've always respected the right of parents to determine what's best for their children, I believe the government has a responsibility to protect children from ... blah blah blah"
interpret that as "I think you're an idiot for your opinion, and you have no hope of changing mine, but if I toss enough glittering generalities around, maybe you'll still vote for me."

the detail doesn't matter, and they all look pretty much alike. I know, I've got a drawer full of them.

I don't imagine that anything I say in any of these letters has ever changed an elected official's mind about anything. the face-to-face discussions I've had with them are no more productive. but *maybe* my opinion gets a tick on a tally sheet and if enough of us make the effort to contact them, some of them will worry which way the wind will be blowing next election day.

yes, I'm cynical... on how and why laws are written, how and why regulations and laws are enforced, and how elected officials behave. believe me, it's cynicism that's been hard won, and at great personal expense.

 

[chickened]

from their own press release:

not farms owned by their families... but by their parents. that language is specific and excludes grandparents, aunts, uncles. these things are not generalities, they're legal terms with specific meanings and they have legal consequences.

from their own press release:
the businesses I was specifically talking about are livestock auctions and stockyards.
there is an exemption for kids working on their parent's farm. auctions and stockyards are not farms.

I have spent a great deal of my time parsing the wording of regulations and laws in california... and nit-picking the details of exactly what was in the law... and I've had to spend a *lot* of money on lawyers for the privelege. while the subject I was addressing was not farm-child employment, I have been personally affected by the unintentional (or perhaps intentional) wording of laws where the proponents have said "oh that's not what it means" and "that's not what it's intended for" and "it'll never be used for that."

when a regulatory agency issues a press release, they're telling you how they intend to use the regulation and the law. the press release is clear - no children working in livestock auctions.

I know from personal experience that it doesn't always matter what the wording is, the regulation can be used to prosecute people who are not in violation of the detail of the words. victory is expensive and not guaranteed.

and I can also tell you from personal experience that it doesn't always matter what the stated intent is, if the words can be interpreted in a different way, that way can and will be applied to some pour soul who will be "made an example of."

no need to share my letters with you, what would be the point?

and no need to share the responses either, I can tell you what they'll look like...
"thank you for contacting me to share your opinions. I want you to know I've always been a strong supporter of farm rights and blah blah blah"
interpret that as "I already agree with you."

or
"thank you for contacting me to share your opinions. I want you to know that while I've always respected the right of parents to determine what's best for their children, I believe the government has a responsibility to protect children from ... blah blah blah"
interpret that as "I think you're an idiot for your opinion, and you have no hope of changing mine, but if I toss enough glittering generalities around, maybe you'll still vote for me."

the detail doesn't matter, and they all look pretty much alike. I know, I've got a drawer full of them.

I don't imagine that anything I say in any of these letters has ever changed an elected official's mind about anything. the face-to-face discussions I've had with them are no more productive. but *maybe* my opinion gets a tick on a tally sheet and if enough of us make the effort to contact them, some of them will worry which way the wind will be blowing next election day.

yes, I'm cynical... on how and why laws are written, how and why regulations and laws are enforced, and how elected officials behave. believe me, it's cynicism that's been hard won, and at great personal expense.

Very well put.

 

[TexasLisa]

Good News! O has flipped flopped on children working on the farms. Here is the link:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/amid-nationwide-outcry-labor-dept-withdraws-farm-child-labor-rule/ Now if only we can believe him.

Lisa

 

[PDXcluck]

Good News! O has flipped flopped on children working on the farms. Here is the link:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/amid-nationwide-outcry-labor-dept-withdraws-farm-child-labor-rule/ Now if only we can believe him.

Lisa

Yes I am sure Obama himself wrote this law, then reversed his opinion. Actually, he probably doesn't really care one way or the other. Whatever expediently gets him more votes or makes him lose less. Partisan politics are a smoke show. Do you think Mitt is going to make life better for you? Think again! There will be more offshoring of jobs than ever.

Write in Ron Paul if he isn't on your ballot. He's crazy, but he wants to abolish the federal reserve. Which is our only hope for an even partially functioning economy. I know he probably won't be able to shut down the fed, but he would, as president, start the conversation and when people wake up to what the Fed is, how it was created and what it actually does, it won't last long....