Obama administration releases an 80-something page document banning minors from touching or being near feed corn, hay, silos, stockyards, working on a farm that is not 100% owned by a parent (can't work on a farm partnered with an uncle, say), being near a tractor or electric screwdriver, or (possibly; law is unclear) putting a halter on a horse, goat, or sheep.  This is withdrawn after a story about it went viral on Internet.  http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/26/amid-nationwide-outcry-labor-dept...

Recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess.

Bans on reselling children's books made before a certain date, even at yard sales, with the claim that such books might have traces of lead.

EPA official admits (boasts?) that the EPA's strategy now is to "crucify" oil and gas companies, apparently with public but unsubstantiated claims of wrongdoing, to turn public opinion.  http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/epa-officials-philosophy-oi... (Official has since apologized for being offensive, but not for the strategy.)

For a while, spending money that had not been allocated by Congress (since Congress had stopped passing budgets), which violates Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7, "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law."  Campaign slogan for the administration is "We can't wait," specifically meaning that if Congress won't act appropriately, the White House will take over more of the functions reserved for Congress in the Constitution.

We've already had a thread about requiring the Catholic Church (!) to buy abortion pills.

Obama campaign is, for the second time, accepting anonymous donations on its web site, in violation of campaign finance laws.

Thing is, although the explosion in regulation and the overreach is unprecedented, some of these things have been here all along, such as the power to arbitrarily ban vast swaths of human activity.  Some of these activities are admittedly illegal, but they continue without legal challenge.

What can possibly be done?  As Friedman said -- don't have the quote in front of me, and I'm going to paraphrase anyway -- it's not enough to put good people in office.  You have to make it so that bad people can't do awful things -- or good people corrupted, or worked around by their underlings.  This sort of thing has gone into overdrive since '08, but it's not exactly new.

Views: 473

Replies to This Discussion

At best they think they are far superior to the rest of us. How we manage to get out of bed in the morning without killing ourselves is a mystery to them. In their minds it makes perfect sense that we need all these rules and they are the intellectual elite so it is only right that they make the rules.

At worst it is a power grab and an attempt to weaken the country. It is no secret that the royal couple do not think favorably of this country. This country need to be taken down a few notches and that is what they intend to do.

I'm not too clear what you are looking for in this thread. Is it a discussion of the inefficiency of bureaucracy or of the jarring bold faced contempt the current administration has for our laws, heritage, constitution, and citizenry?

If the latter, I agree, this is a horribly arrogant and corrupt administration.

If the former, I view it as that slippery slope nobody ever really believes exists.  We simply didn't wake up one morning to this bloated, corrupt,  redundant, entitled, and avaricious government. It started with just a toe inside the door. Next thing you know there is more traffic in and out than at Walmart on tax free weekend.  

That's what people don't get about the whole slippery slope concept. It's not today this, tomorrow that but rather today this, 50-100 years from now that. Most folk are either too short sighted to envision it or simply don't care because it is too far away to get worked up about. Still I'll wager those same people are worked up over the current state of our government which their forefathers set on the path to what we have today. You pretty well sum up that train wreck in your post.

Lets never let facts get in the way of a great chance to be emotionally upset.



Never let the facts interfere, indeed.  Shieldes's link shows a claim that parent-owned farms would have been exempt, but not grandparents' farm, uncle's farm, partnerships between parents and other family, or activities that take place off the farm, including animal shows, going to stockyards, and 4-H activities; with 4-H being prohibited from some of its usual activities.

But back to the facts.  This has been hyper-accelerated in recent years, and it needs stopping; but it was going on before, and needed stopping.  I wonder what we can do to rein it in.  Theoretically they are accountable to us . . . but nobody in government or out seems to be able to restrain it. 

God I love the hyperbole.


A) Unless the Uncle or the grandparent is the legal guardian, they are not directly responsible for the child.  If they are the legal guardian, everything is fine.

B) A proposed regulation that was put out last August to be reviewed for a full year, after many years were spent researching teh subject is hardly hyper accelerated, end around, or forced.  It is a very clear, very open process that your side should have been addressing since August.

C) Unless you completey disagree with child labor laws and workplace safety laws, then the argument is more about emotion and not about fact.  Either you work as a team to correct wrongs, or you just whine.  I would love some more actual facts, hard facts about 4H as the article I spent 3 seconds finding only mentioned the problems being tackled do to tractor safety.  As far as I know, everything else is conjecture.  After the full out lies your side spread about "death panels", I have no respect for conjecture of a law coming from the right.  It carries as much weight as you guys trying to spell my name


OK.  What the Dept. of Labor Press Release talks about is a proposed change in agricultural child labor rules.

What are the problems are with the regulations (as defined)?

1.  The rules, were not written by the Dept of Labor, but by a sub-subagency of HHS, define what constitutes a family.

2.  The rules, as described in the DoL Press Release, would outright ban a significant portion of youth activity at County Fairs.

3.  Although the proposed rules were put in the Federal Register last September, the public comment period was only 60 days, not a full year.

4.  And last, the "tractor safety issue" amounted to a ban on anyone under 16 driving a tractor, except for "driver training".

What's upsetting to folks is that administration agencies have been putting out  regulations and the "mainstream" media don't say a word about any of them.


And what if you do completely disagree with child labor laws and workplace safety laws?

Lobby your legislators to change them, or take it to court... or suck it up. 

Looks like the Obama campaign has taken to publicizing, and condemning, people who donate to Romney's campaign:


Another Rubicon crossed.  Of course, intimidating your opponent's supporters was never, AFAIK, illegal, but it wasn't done.  I wonder what the effect will be.

Oh yeah, nobody privately in Obama's past has ever been brought up and dragged through the mud to then make Obama look worse


This is neither news(Not that I expect news from the WSJ Opinion page) nor is it remotely new.  Politics, and esp elections propaganda, has always been seedy, dirty and downright nasty,

I'm sure it is beyond your capabilities to see the difference between the two groups of people. Those being "outed" for support of Romney because they moved jobs out of the country, support oil companies and the biggest and most vile infraction of all disagreeing with the liberal agenda. While those who were dragged through the mud from Obamas past blew up police buildings (and wanted to incite further violence) and preached hatred against America.

Shieldes would you dare put down here in black and white something that if Obama or his government passed you would consider it wrong? Given enough time I'm sure he would accomplish it. What are your boundaries for this guy?

I just don't think either side is going to score lasting points as far as bringing over voters with that strategy.  I think the R's do it just to remain outraged, and I honestly cannot comprehend why the D's did something so lame unless they thought they could be like the R's.


I have stated many times where I have been disappointed with Pres Obama.  You guys don't catch it because it is usually revolving around where you think he is being socialist commie while my side sees that he compromised to the point of passing a polished turd that will make no real difference.  I just don't run around outraged over everything


Latest Activity

R. Max Blease replied to Lucious Drake's discussion Good comebacks/witty responses
"That too."
15 minutes ago
Regular Joe replied to Lucious Drake's discussion Good comebacks/witty responses
"No it just sounds super contrived. "
29 minutes ago
R. Max Blease replied to Lucious Drake's discussion Good comebacks/witty responses
"Right, the pitcher might be offended. "
49 minutes ago
certified male added a discussion to the group The manly art of coffee

Roasting heaven

For the past month I have been roasting batches of green beans I got from a wholesaler in Washington off of Craig's list.  I have been mixing and matching and came up with what I consider a fine brew.  1/2 Guatemalan for the sweet high notes, 1/4 Ethiopian for the richness and 1/4 Sumatran for the heavy notes all roasted just past the 2nd crack.  Yow, it's good.  I give it away to the relatives for Christmas.  What are you guys roasting?See More
53 minutes ago
certified male replied to Mongoose's discussion Question on Gum Sales
"So it's not concealed carry"
1 hour ago
Regular Joe replied to Jay's discussion Is it possible to accurately predict someone else's past or present emotions?
" "
1 hour ago
Regular Joe replied to Regular Joe's discussion World's Best Whisky Officially Declared
"For whatever reason, they're re-stocking the boonies before the cities. There might be 4 bottles at a liquor store near my work (based on last night's stock levels on their website) so I'ma take a walk down there at lunch to see…"
1 hour ago
Carl Monster replied to Jay's discussion Is it possible to accurately predict someone else's past or present emotions?
"Your point being?"
1 hour ago

© 2015   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service