Video: Regulation fan discovers inner Libertarian when it hits her pocketbook
posted at 3:15 pm on January 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We see this a lot in Minnesota, where liberals happily plaster their Prius bumper with signs that profess they’re “Happy to Pay for a Better Minnesota,” then move to a state where tax costs are lower. I got that same vibe from this television report on the impact that the Consumer Protection Safety Improvement Act will have on small businesses up and down the distribution chain, let alone consumers. The reporter interviewed one such small-business owner who cheered greater regulation — right up until it started affecting her pocketbook (via Q&O):
It doesn’t get much more clueless than this, but it does mirror what happens in Congress when these kinds of regulations get proposed. Politicians stick names on in like “Safety Improvement Act” in order to make a vote against it look like a vote against safety. No one considers the ramifications of the bill until it goes into effect, and suddenly we’re talking about putting good used clothing in landfills instead of on people, and ensuring that only the biggest toymakers and clothiers can afford the testing necessary to sell their goods.
Of course, we’d get less of that if we had fewer clueless citizens cheering on legislation about which they know next to nothing — until too late. That’s what is ridiculous.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The root of this problem is that Congress is full of celebrities, useless lawyers and trophy husbands/wives, with no relevant experience whatsoever.
They don’t live in the real world.
They don’t know how the real world works.
Everything they’ve learned, they’ve learned at universities full of professors who’ve never had to exist in the real world themselves.
As long as the American people keep electing perfumed princes/princesses aristocrats, we’ll keep getting counterproductive legislation like this.
NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 3:19 PM
It’s for the children.
Four of the most dangerous words in this republic.
MadisonConservative on January 9, 2009 at 3:20 PM
This just proves that most people are idiots who can’t think beyond the emotionalism of bumper sticker slogans.
t.ferg on January 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Washington has no clue how the economy or this country actually functions.
lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
… if we had fewer clueless citizens …
Yes, if only.
Thank you, lefty teacher’s unions, for dumbing down our kids, thus making future generations easier to fool and control, hence the election of Obama.
Tony737 on January 9, 2009 at 3:22 PM
sounds a lot like California…look at the state of that state now!
beththebaker on January 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM
They don’t know how the real world works. Everything they’ve learned, they’ve learned at universities full of professors who’ve never had to exist in the real world themselves. – No Donk
Reminds me of the movie “Back to School” where Rodney Dangerfield challenges his economics professor. Classic.
Tony737 on January 9, 2009 at 3:24 PM
….HEH!!!
That should be the liberal creed.
At first, I was like, wow!! That is so friendly to Mother Gia. And then I was like..oh no!…My business bilking like minded retards is going down the crapper and I’m going to have to go back to work for The Gap. Bummer.
BigWyo on January 9, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Why do the brains of those on the left always seem to be wearing slippers instead of, oh I don’t know, hiking boots?
Gospel Moody on January 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Never overestimate the ignorance of the American voter.
Andy in Agoura Hills on January 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
A tragic farce of greek proportions.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Aside from the war making power, the President is strong only when he says “No”, unfortunately GW was a go along to get along President and signed lots of crap legislation, this and McCain-Feingold included.
Sheerq on January 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Every guy over 50 who posts here, was raised with lead laden toys.
Who didn’t have a pocket of “soldiers”, who didn’t have mercury thermometers, or their room painted with “lead” paint…we even played with lead, it was cool to bend like Superman, able to bend steel with his bare hands…and the lead pipe was twisted like a pretzel, and for just a moment we were Superman…
right2bright on January 9, 2009 at 3:27 PM
yep, just another example of Bush’s failures.
Wade on January 9, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Ha! He said “international manufacturing”! How diplomatic of him. What he meant was Chinese junk!
Tony737 on January 9, 2009 at 3:29 PM
The EPA wants to tax dairy farmers $87.50/dairy cow to pay for flatulence impact on the enviorment. That, along with the $7.00/bushel corn prices should do wonders to the cost of a gallon of milk. Sadly, most voters and the majority of Congress are not linear thinkers.
a capella on January 9, 2009 at 3:30 PM
The news item states that “it was signed into law by Bush” but doesn’t say who sponsored the thing to begin with. I took this to mean that it is originally the brainchild of a democrat.
I wasn’t disappointed: Bobby L. Rush (D). From Illinois, no less.
Nice work there, sport.
commenter on January 9, 2009 at 3:31 PM
I’m waiting for Regulation fans to discover their inner crime fighter and gun nut when perps are handed liberal get out jail free cards and ammunition is five bucks a round, they might even rediscover their pre ACLU history books when amnesty and reparations kick in. Since amnesty is upon us revolting could be sooner than later.
Speakup on January 9, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Can we go back to limit voting to people who are landowners? Having an education clearly doesn’t help.
Mark30339 on January 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Sounds like a great un-taxable Black Market will spring up….
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
izoneguy on January 9, 2009 at 3:32 PM
More Popcorn Please!!
PappaMac on January 9, 2009 at 3:33 PM
good…I’m hoping the obamabots are the ones to suffer most in the new age of obama the merciful…
right4life on January 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM
The nannyfication and infantilization of the country continues…
Bruno Strozek on January 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I’m 60. My toy soldiers were plastic. Did you grow up behind the iron curtain or something?
snaggletoothie on January 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I’m still laughing.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I’m 53 and I got toy (metal) soldiers with lead based paints every Christmas. But most say I’m nuts. Hmmm gotta get a lawyer
Bevan on January 9, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Just another thought – many of the lame brained, costly ideas foisted upon us by Congress could be stopped one one brave President who vetoed unnecessary legislation, and 34 Senators who would uphold such a veto. It’s a shame this great nation can’t find a mere 35 statesmen.
Sheerq on January 9, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Honestly, we need MORE of this sort of thing to take place to “educate” the public in critical thought. I figured the gas crisis this past summer would finally be something to motivate the sheeple to think past the manic hysteria of the Green Movement. But alas, that wasn’t the case…
Wyznowski on January 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Liberals act based on emotion, conservatives on logic. A liberal business owner ends up being more of the ‘ready, fire, aim!’ persuasion. Is it really too much to ask that people think about the consequences of legislation before they support or oppose it? We have environmental impact statements that must be prepared before construction projects begin – how about a legislative impact statement be attached to every bill, to explain the cost and market distortions that occur if it is enacted?
Vashta.Nerada on January 9, 2009 at 3:45 PM
FIFY.
Kafir on January 9, 2009 at 3:46 PM
I believe in making the world beautifully regulated.
Just don’t make me pay for it.
/sarc
Kini on January 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Why do the brains of lefties always seem to be wearing slippers instead of, oh I don’t know, hiking boots?
Gospel Moody on January 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM
That’s what happens when you make reactionary laws. It ends up hurting the people it was designed to prtotect or help. It usually is a liberal coming up with that type of law.
imri on January 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM
People will really notice this law when the Yard Sale Police come calling.
RickZ on January 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM
We own a small business and, in addition to the time (and money) it takes to play part time social worker, INS agent and tax collector for the government, nothing wastes more of our time and hits our bottom line harder than useless regulations.
And let me tell you something else – the kids coming out of college to work for the government have never met a regulation they didn’t like. It seems like they come up with something new every day.
We entrepreneurs have already begun to shrug.
Rae on January 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM
True, but Bush can Veto a bill. The fact that he has rarely done it when it’s been clearly justified is a major failing on his part.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Hey, maybe the woman will go whole hog conservative and we’ll have yet another lovely vision on our side. Not for me though, she’s way older.
BKennedy on January 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
I am 60 plus and I had lead soldiers. In fact, when they got twisted and stuff, we melted them down, put them in the mold and made new ones. Not to mention that our house was full of lead based paint.
Damn, our furnaces were coal burners and insulated with asbestos. Ah yes, those were the days growing up in the north side of Chicago.
BobK on January 9, 2009 at 3:52 PM
That was an excellent example.
Of the professors I had, the ones who were by far the most interesting were those who could site real world experiences.
The dull ones were the ones who were all theory.
And as far as fellow students, in my graduate program, I always tried to get students who had real world experience in on my projects.
Because those who went to Graduate School directly out of undergrad (why do people do that?), had nothing to contribute, in particular the foreigners whom I couldn’t understand in any case.
NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I recall an economics case study where elevator operators in the 1950s struck for benefits and money — owners installed automatic elevators and fired the manual operators — unattended consequences. Economics books are fully of such tells, but this one takes the cake..Now Obama wants to recreate the economy of a grand scale – how many unseen consequences do you suppose there will be…
jimwesty on January 9, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Just the start of what’s to come.
Environmental socialism/soft authoritarianism begins in earnest on January 20th. Enjoy the ride.
moxie_neanderthal on January 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Nothing to fear, President-elect Obama has a vast amount of experience at running for President and reading off of teleprompters, I’m sure he will make no significant errors in re-engineering a multi-trillion dollar economy.
Remain calm. All is well!
NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Yea. Right along with “This is only a temporary measure”.
BacaDog on January 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM
This is a HUGE deal in South Carolina as the law not only applies to the sale of new baby clothes, but also to the re-sale of used baby clothes. Consignment stores are a big thing down here and they have not figured out how they are going to certify that all consigned clothes is certified lead free. At the father of twin four-month old girls, we were planning on using consignment stores for much of our babies wardrobe.
Also on the ecological front, with no way to re-use or recycle used baby clothes, all of it is going to wind up in a landfill.
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I just started reading “Economics in One Lesson.” I like it so far. The “One Lesson” is that you need to consider both the short term and long term effects of any proposed policy, on all groups. This is contrast to most politicans, who only consider the short term effects, often only on one group.
kc8ukw on January 9, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Can I still have my yard sale this weekend?
BacaDog on January 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM
“Now, where should we construct our plant?”
“How about Fantasyland?”
SlimyBill on January 9, 2009 at 4:04 PM
First of all, what the hell is an eco-friendly toy? Cut that crap. Anyone trying to push this eco trend is a bottom feeder. I wouldn’t want any of those toys shown in that video. Give me a fluorescent Darth Vader with radioactive light saber any day.
Secondly, the Chinese, if we don’t keep tabs on what they are selling us, will sell us anything. They already killed our pets.
So two for two, this child-woman is a dope.
keep the change on January 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Hand knit baby booties? Next thing you know they’ll ban DDT and millions of people will die needlessly from malaria.
Oh wait! They already did that.
Buy Danish on January 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
The opening sentence from the news anchor is a hoot: “Well, one thing shoppers are finding less of this year? Organically-made toys.”
Is there anybody at Christmastime who says, “Honey, we need to make sure the kids toys are organically-made this year!”
Ed Driscoll on January 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
The reporter was kind of cute.
RWLA on January 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
You need to get out more often.
thomasaur on January 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I think the government needs to stay out of our toyboxes. All my siblings and I agree that one of the most fun things we ever got to do was play with mercury…after mom accidentally broke the thermometer. In a flattish bottomed bowl, it can be broken into lots of little blobs from one big one. If you swirl the bowl a little, all the little blobs roll around and join up and voila! there’s that one big ole’ blob again. We are reasonably normal, have lovely children and grandchildren. What a bunch of constipated, overconcerned, nosy governmen killjoys. “Land of the free”? Not so very much anymore. Too many nannies.
marybel on January 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Good, let milk skyrocket. We should be breast feeding our kids anyhow, at least until they graduate from college;) If you don’t believe me, just ask the
hippiesla leche nazisdems.Laura in Maryland on January 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Heh. Sweet blowback.
Fletch54 on January 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
“Safety Improvement Act” = Corporate Welfare for manufacturers of affected items. Can’t get ‘em used? You’ll have to buy brand new. [CEOs wringing hands greedily at the thought] Look for a lot of this crap as PEBO and other dems pay back their big donors.
innominatus on January 9, 2009 at 4:17 PM
FIFY……….
Seven Percent Solution on January 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Careful, I sense a whole new Federal Department in the making.
“Sucking on the Federal Teet” may become literal.
And think of the job opportunities for young women and minorities!
NoDonkey on January 9, 2009 at 4:23 PM
One thing is for sure. More regulation will create a huge black market (is that racist since we have a mulatto prez?). I’m always studying the Russians because, heck, you gotta be able to survive no matter what the government does to starve you.
I do have a prediction, though. After 4 yrs of the messiah, Pelosi and the socialist oligarchs robbing us, alcoholism will be on the rise.
Salut, suckahs!
Cody1991 on January 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
The more innocent a name sounds, whether it’s put on legislation or on a community organization, the more suspicious I am of that legislation or organization.
An innocent-sounding name for an organization causes me to instantly google the organization & to start looking at who’s on the organization’s board, what their mission statement is, etc.
I’ve yet to have my searches go unrewarded.
LFRGary on January 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM
You realize, of course, that many of these clueless citizens are sitting in Congress. These bills are so large and complex, and they seem to get passed so quickly at times – who actually reads them before passage?
SouthernRoots on January 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM
So much for the pro-downtown, anti-Walmart movement. Way to go, libs.
But at least American babies won’t be exposed to dangerous hand-crocheted booties anymore.
patriette on January 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
As they say, Leftists have a real special kind of Stupid
FirstBrigade on January 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
America’s children are so coddled today.
Hell, when I was a kid, we sucked on lead lollipops and played with spent fuel rods.
The Ugly American on January 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
And then proceed to vote for loopy lefties in their adopted home states, spreading the misery. Witness North Carolina, Virginia and Florida. Georgia may not be far behind.
ddrintn on January 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Unintended consequences, my ass…..
This is key. Big corporations don’t like competition from those pesky smaller guys. So to get them out of the picture, they send their lobbyists to DC to convince our mindless, easily-swayed politicians that these regulations are needed for the public good. Then they grease their palms with some cash, give the new law some cutesy name, and everything’s hunky dory.
I work for a large corporation. We have thousands of lawyers and regulatory affairs people. Our CEO has expressed support for laws like Sarbanes-Oxley (just as an example). The reason he gave is that it will keep us honest and ethical (or some crap like that). But the real reason is that no startup company will be able to cut into our action because SOX compliance will be prohibitively expensive.
UltimateBob on January 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
First of all, what the hell is an “organic” toy? Seriously – that word is so overused, it’s lost all meaning.
Second; she thinks it’s “ridiculous” that her organic booties would be illegal. Maybe it is but if there was any justice, the reporter would have gotten in her face and demanded to know why she thinks it so ridiculous to prevent greedy merchants from foisting their death booties on innocent babies just to make a profit. Why do you hate babies?!
landshark on January 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM
And then proceed to vote for loopy lefties in their adopted home states, spreading the misery. Witness North Carolina, Virginia and Florida. Georgia may not be far behind.
ddrintn on January 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I’m afraid that is what will happen in my state. We do our best to convince people that we’re knuckle-dragging, drunk-driving, cousin-loving fools, but it’s not working. They keep moving here and insist on changing things so that we replicate the failed policies they left… kind of like our government and its move to European styled socialism.
Liberals are cockroaches.
Cody1991 on January 9, 2009 at 4:45 PM
I think the attitude of both the headline and most commenters isn’t very useful. Opposing a stupid regulation doesn’t mean that you oppose all regulation, any more than opposing a stupid law makes you an anarchist, or insisting that a law be enforced makes you a fascist. The bad guys here aren’t those who oppose an already passed law on the merits rather than on principle, but those who passed the law in the first place. The shop-owner wasn’t lobbying for a law she knew nothing about; she was responding to a law that had been imposed on her. After hearing the idea of the law and thinking, “That’s good for me,” she heard the details and thought, “That’s bad for me.”
In some sense, the lesson here is that – if you’re going to have such a regulation – it’s better to have a regulation that warns consumers (as with California’s 1986 Proposition 65) rather than (or during some grace period prior to) banning items. If items were labeled as “untested: may contain harmful chemicals” rather than banned, the law would be far more palatable, and its flaws would be exposed (and possibly reversed) without (or before) doing serious economic harm.
calbear on January 9, 2009 at 4:48 PM
(Just to be clear, I’m not saying that all of Prop 65 was wonderful, just that it’s good that certain harmful substances were labeled instead of banned outright.)
calbear on January 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM
What will they ban next? Bag O’ Glass? Johnny Switchblade: Adventure Punk? Teddy Chainsaw Bear? The bastards …
PackerBronco on January 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Most libs, like the woman that sells organic toys (organic toys?), are functionally incapable of learning from experience. She will continue to vote for Franken.
I just read a hand-wringing article about local urban schools. Could have been written 20 years ago. They have quotes (and pictures) of earnest young educators and the dropouts that have been created by previous earnest educators.
They scratch their little heads and try to figure out who to blame. The result is a self-contradicting mess of an article. Liberals are clueless, will always be clueless and should be kept away from any important activity.
Especially any activity that is remotely related to finance.
r keller on January 9, 2009 at 5:06 PM
The damn thing is, there are and I know a few!
PackerBronco on January 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Unintended Consequences read the book
RobD on January 9, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Here is the link
http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040
RobD on January 9, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I need a bailout from all this regulation…
Speaking of which, how long before Goodwill, Salvation Army, et al. march on Congress demanding a bailout because they can no longer afford to stay in business due to the “Safety Improvement Act?”
monotonousboy on January 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Why do all these busy body lib tool chicks have that same voice? I can’t quite describe it but they all talk with the same lazy vocalization from the back of their throat, don’t project and have that same empty expression. Weird.
ronsfi on January 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Can we call them useful idiots now?
Liberal big government strikes again!
jukin on January 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Wrong! Oppose all regulation and let people deal with the consequences of their individual (or collective) choices and decisions.
monotonousboy on January 9, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Yeah, but then Congress would have to really govern. And that’s too hard!
PattyJ on January 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM
The real question is, how many jobs were lost because of this new regulation? Isn’t congress trying to create (or at least save) jobs? We are spending trillions to save jobs when with a stroke of a pen congress and the President are destroying jobs. Then again, maybe they are intentionally trying to destroy the economy so the democrats can have a permanent majority.
jerseyman on January 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM
All I can say is, those poor kids… :(
ks_sonflower on January 9, 2009 at 5:23 PM
I agree this woman may be a little nutty, but there is nothing wrong with wanting more natural toys. Our wooden toys outlast the plastic ones by years, and they are often more simple and allow greater creativity. Unfortunately, they are hard enough to find as is. Wanting natural products is not a ‘lib’ thing – I prefer natural, untreated yarn to crochet (and now knit!) with, because I like the results, and we as a family prefer more natural things because they work better for our family.
This law is crap, though, that’s for sure, and it’s going to affect a lot of people regardless of political affiliation. The road to disaster is being paved by the unintended consequences of laws and regulations forced upon us by idiot legislatures on both sides of the aisle.
Anna on January 9, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Seriously – isn’t that a Michael Jackson quote about how he loves kids, or something?
batterup on January 9, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I agree, and they are hard to find. My solution is to make my own wooden toys. The nieces and nephews love them.
Vashta.Nerada on January 9, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I got a better one…. “If it means saveing just one childs life, isn’t it worth it??
WHO CAN SAY NO?
Heck it’ll only cost industry fifty billion or so and only put 20,000 people out of work and only close 5,000 small businesses and only keep cheap second hand coats from 10,000 cold, poor children next year….
but if you can save one childs life, isn’t it worth it?
What if, as an unintended consiquence, one of those cold poor children die from not having that warm coat? Is it still worth it? So…. IF WE COULD SAVE JUST ONE CHILD’S LIFE (FROM AN UNINTENDED CONSIQUENCE), ISN’T IT WORTH NOT DOING THIS?
Oh well, enough.
Ernest on January 9, 2009 at 5:36 PM
Old Country Boy on January 9, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Wow, I give props to you on that. Sharp objects and I are not friends. Handmade toys are awesome, though, and I’m seeing armies of clothes pin soldiers in our future. In fact… thanks for the inspiration!
Anna on January 9, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Buying products from Germany?
Isn’t it a revered tenant of the church of
Global WarmingGlobal Cooling.. Climate Change that you buy Locally?Clearly, this is sign from mother Gaia that we’re not to buy from overseas and that we need to listen to momma Gaia,
plant a tree, buy carbon credits from Algore, fund education or something….
FirstBrigade on January 9, 2009 at 6:05 PM
The root of this problem lies somewhere in China, buried in a 100KG bag of melamine next to stacked lead ingots.
The sad part of this is that the regulation is needed in the face of imported products containing stuff that we would never let our kids eat, done up in a manner that invites them to do so.
Basically, any kids’ jewelry is suspect.
With regard to phthalates there are plenty of things on the market to beware of. For kids, don’t give them soft plastic pacifiers or teething rings, and don’t microwave food in plastic (such as PVC, which is stabilized with lead, cadmium, or pthlates) — use glass (or, my favorite for fireworks, aluminum). And, if you find an old TupperCare baby bottle, don’t buy it.
As for clothing, most of it is either cotton, polyester, or rayon, which are safe. If something has painted trim (such as a zipper pull), avoid it, because the Chinese are really into lead.
And if something inexpensive feels really heavy and “quality”, check the heavy parts — they are probably lead.
We know this stuff will be out there in the thrift stores, so we can either depend on the gov’t to protect us from it, or do it ourselves.
unclesmrgol on January 9, 2009 at 6:12 PM
We get the government we deserve.
Theworldisnotenough on January 9, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Washington IS an alternate universe.
GarandFan on January 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Hmmmmm let us now look at all the “anti-pollution” legislation and so who it affects. Let’s see the City of Griffith Park in the middle of Port Arthur TX was one way back in the 70’s. It was a small place with limited government other than a strict building restrictions. The treasury was chock a block full, with almost no taxes, and absolutely no debt. Then it had to build a new sewerage treatment plant to make sure that the effluent was purer than drinking water. It could not get enough credit to build the necessary plants, so it was absorbed into a dying city. Both are wastelands last time I checked.
Let us look at what emissions legislation did to the foundry business. Back in the 1980’s small foundries were thriving. They were small privately owned enterprises that were extremely cost effective, and then new legislation caused them to be shut down all over the U.S. because they would have to spend an enormous amount of money that only publicly traded could afford. Guess who benefited?
Now ExxonMobil endorses the “Global Warming” hoax. This will drive the independent and less capitalized out of business just like all the other legislation has.
Libtards, do you get it now?
Kermit on January 9, 2009 at 7:19 PM
It’s not “international manufacturing,” it’s Chinese manufacturing. These liberals can’t even muster the strength to say the right words. Nobody but China has been accused of importing lead-based or poisoned toys.
Log on January 9, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Thanks Rae, I read most of the comments on this article and it is exactly that way for me too. My small business is gone, (my choice) and whenever I buy anything, the cash (only) I will use to pay for it will smell like coffee. I never understood why everytime my grandpa gave me money when I was little, it smelled like coffee. Best bank in the world, Maxwell house coffee cans, buried in the yard. I have lost the trust I had in anything even remotely touched by the government now. *sigh*
clinker46 on January 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM
*spew* When did you start writing about it again?
angelat0763 on January 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM
For those who this will effect that champion government over site and over regulation and WANTED SOMETHING DONE, because of a couple of issues.
— I HOPE THE HITS YOU SQUARE IN THE #$#@. YOU DESERVE EVERY THING YOU GET!!!!!!
For those who this will effect that DID not want it and believe in free trade and all that. I am sorry if this will hurt you. I wish you the best.
kara26 on January 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Then there are the “O-liticians”, who are still trying to get their heads around that “consider” word. They think perhaps “consider” means that if it shows up on the teleprompter, “consider it said”.
drunyan8315 on January 9, 2009 at 8:44 PM
right2bright, I’m one of those over fifty, born in ‘47. Being a kid was fun, no helmets, sharp objects, small things to swallow, playing with matches, things to put one’s eye out; skinned knees, bloody noses, chipped tooth – part of growing up, part of learning.
Pelayo on January 9, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »