New law will close small businesses, fill dumps

[shel90]

If this law doesn't get changed, it will be disaster for mom-and-pop businesses, thrift stores that serve low-income families, and low-income families with children.

Big retailers can afford the testing, and upper-income families can afford new clothing.

Goodwill and other used clothing stores will quit selling children's clothing. Where will low-income families buy clothing for their children?

I'm not against testing for hazards. But I believe the testing should be done at the point of production, not at the retail level. The companies that produce the fabrics, yarns, buttons, threads, snaps, zippers, trims, etc., should be required to test their products. The materials that go into toys and children's furnishings should be tested at the point of manufacture of raw materials. The suppliers of inks, papers, and binding materials should be tested instead of testing individual books.

Since this is a federal mandate with no grandfathering-in period, there should at least be a tax break for those industries who have to buy the testing equipment and services.

If the government really has the safety of the consumer at heart, then it should make this process as easy and affordable as possible.

I think this would be the solution.

I can see and understand both Jillio and Darkdogs' view...this is not an easy situation for anyone.

 

[jillio]

So are you now saying that I should pay to have everything in my home tested regardless of the cost? Because just a minute ago, you said, "And no one is asking a parent to pay for testing." Did you go to such extremes for your child? Are you saying I should?

Please show me legislation that states that you must have everything in your home tested. You are bringing up moot points. The whole point of testing products before they are purchased is to insure that you are not bringing unsafe products into your home.
No, it's about unreasonable regulations that will hurt and even destroy businesses. I'm all for sane regulations. That's why I said, "I also haven't seen any indication that these measures will actually increase the safety of children's products, at least compared to more sane measures that could be adopted." The reason bad laws like this get passed by such a huge majority is because politicians want to avoid the shrill voices yelling "he doesn't care about the children!". At that point, all reason goes out the window.

Regulations that prevent devastating disease is not unreasonable at all. You have failed to answer the question: Do you even know what the devastating and life long effects of lead poisoning and phalate poisoning is? I suspect that you don't.

See? That's why I'm not a politician.

I'd say there are probably many other reasons that you are not a politician.:giggle:

Oh, you know what other soulless despicable thing I plan to do with my kids in the name of convenience? I'm going to put them in a car and drive them places. :-o

Fallicious comparison. If you want to argue your point intelligently, don't use fallicious comparisons that have virtually nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Maria]

so you condone it? funny... you don't condone abortion & death penalty.. but you condone people doing unsafe things in the name of economical survival even if it kills people?

I am against abortion and support death penalty, dependin' on the situation what kind of crime a person is involved.

By people doin' unsafe things, I did not say in the NAME of economical survival. Like for instance: China sent toys to the USA that contained lead/or poison from paints or what ever that are on the toys -- question is WHY the Congress allowed them to send the toys that contained lead or poison BEFORE the economy started fallin' apart ? Why now ? It is not good idea to do it durin' at this time of economic crisis. It will make things worse for weeks, or months or even years to come. It costs small business owners alot more money to test EACH item - I think it is ridiculous! I bet you that there is another for American citizens to pay more, too. They will increase taxes. It's all about the money they are after until people are broke with NO money left to survive on their own. They could lose some valuable things like a house, or maybe a car and things like that.

I feel sorry for the low income families who couldn't afford to buy some nice and decent clothes for their children if, Thrift stores are goin' to close. What for ? Why close Thrift stores ? I am sure there are many SAFE stuff in Thrift stores - they are NOT new.

Another thing comes to my mind thinkin' of a dollar that says " Federal Reserve Note " -- what does that mean ? Oh, does that means the USA owes lots of money and that a dollar is less valuable ? Why keep usin' it to make " debt " grow worse ? It needs to stop and the higher up people need to focus on the National Debt and get it fixed! Never mind about testin' or what ever the Congress is tryin' to do. It is just a wasted.

 

[darkdog]

Please show me legislation that states that you must have everything in your home tested. You are bringing up moot points. The whole point of testing products before they are purchased is to insure that you are not bringing unsafe products into your home.

Once again...

That was an example to illustrate the craziness of a "no trade-off" attitude.

There are dangers to children outside of lead and phthalates. And everything in my home was manufactured before February 10, 2009. But if you want a different example, here you go.

Oh, you know what other soulless despicable thing I plan to do with my kids in the name of convenience? I'm going to put them in a car and drive them places. :-o

Whether we like to admit it or not, we all operate according to trade-offs, even with our children's health. These are merely EXAMPLES to illustrate that point.

Regulations that prevent devastating disease is not unreasonable at all. You have failed to answer the question: Do you even know what the devastating and life long effects of lead poisoning and phalate poisoning is? I suspect that you don't.

Yes, I am aware of the devastating effects of lead and phthalate poisoning, and I wouldn't wish it on my child or any other child. I'm trying to separate the intention of a bill and the method it uses to attempt to realize that intention. The intention is good. The method is bad. I would be all for a bill with the same intention and a sane method.

I'd say there are probably many other reasons that you are not a politician.

Considering the caliber of geniuses running the show, I take that as a compliment.

Fallicious comparison. If you want to argue your point intelligently, don't use fallicious comparisons that have virtually nothing to do with the topic.

I wouldn't confuse your inability to understand my point with lack of intelligence or relevance in my point. Let me try again in a way that you might understand. It feels like a shooting in the dark, but here I go.

Perhaps you put business before choldren's health and well being. My priorities are obviously different from yours. I prefer to put children's health concerns first.

Do you drive your kids in a car? If so, why? Don't you know that car accidents are the greatest risk for children? Much higher than the risk of lead and phthalate poisoning. I was considering driving my kids everywhere, but I changed my mind. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the effects of car accidents (which can be just as devastating as lead and phthalate poisoning), there is no trade off when it comes to children. Some people are fine with driving their kids in cars. Perhaps they put business before children's health and well-being. My priorities are obviously different from theirs. I prefer to put children's health concerns first. So I will always walk them everywhere and never put them in a vehicle for any reason.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

I came across this from a blog I frequent daily. MountainMama



Jenny from MountainMama belongs to a group of stay at home Moms that homeschools and does a lot of handmade objects. They worry about the new law and just posted a new picture. The picture you click talks about the law and how you can be proactive instead of reactive.

 

[Jiro]

So are you now saying that I should pay to have everything in my home tested regardless of the cost? Because just a minute ago, you said, "And no one is asking a parent to pay for testing." Did you go to such extremes for your child? Are you saying I should?

this is about businesses requiring to test their products.... not homes. Beside - the cost of lead/phalate testings is nothing comparable to the cost of hospitalization of lead/phalate poisoning and/or lawsuit. It's a small price to pay but I do agree with Reba that this should have been done at production level... not retail level. beside - they are reconsidering the law that have negative impacts on small stores.

See? That's why I'm not a politician.

Oh, you know what other soulless despicable thing I plan to do with my kids in the name of convenience? I'm going to put them in a car and drive them places. :-o

how is that related to this topic? you are free to do that so anyway.

 

[jillio]

Once again...

There are dangers to children outside of lead and phthalates. And everything in my home was manufactured before February 10, 2009. But if you want a different example, here you go.

So why risk increasing the already numerous dangers? And what is in your home has virtually nothing to do with this topic, unless you are currently selling those items in your home to the public, and your home is qualified as a business.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we all operate according to trade-offs, even with our children's health. These are merely EXAMPLES to illustrate that point.


Yes, I am aware of the devastating effects of lead and phthalate poisoning, and I wouldn't wish it on my child or any other child. I'm trying to separate the intention of a bill and the method it uses to attempt to realize that intention. The intention is good. The method is bad. I would be all for a bill with the same intention and a sane method.


Considering the caliber of geniuses running the show, I take that as a compliment.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I wouldn't confuse your inability to understand my point with lack of intelligence or relevance in my point. Let me try again in a way that you might understand. It feels like a shooting in the dark, but here I go.
I understand the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately, you are attempting to do so with fallicious comparisons, which tend to invalidate any point you are attempting to make.

Do you drive your kids in a car? If so, why? Don't you know that car accidents are the greatest risk for children? Much higher than the risk of lead and phthalate poisoning. I was considering driving my kids everywhere, but I changed my mind. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the effects of car accidents (which can be just as devastating as lead and phthalate poisoning), there is no trade off when it comes to children. Some people are fine with driving their kids in cars. Perhaps they put business before children's health and well-being. My priorities are obviously different from theirs. I prefer to put children's health concerns first. So I will always walk them everywhere and never put them in a vehicle for any reason.

Once again, driving is a fallicous comparison. And the reason that automobile accidents are a higher risk is directly related to the fact that lead and phalates in children's products, and products intended for residential use, have been outlawed.

 

[Jiro]

Do you drive your kids in a car? If so, why? Don't you know that car accidents are the greatest risk for children? Much higher than the risk of lead and phthalate poisoning. I was considering driving my kids everywhere, but I changed my mind. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the effects of car accidents (which can be just as devastating as lead and phthalate poisoning), there is no trade off when it comes to children. Some people are fine with driving their kids in cars. Perhaps they put business before children's health and well-being. My priorities are obviously different from theirs. I prefer to put children's health concerns first. So I will always walk them everywhere and never put them in a vehicle for any reason.

Car accidents are caused by drivers... not manufacturers nor car dealerships. That is the case of driver error... not manufacturer's negligence. If you're selling the products that cause harm/death... well that is illegal. Your car example is a very poor analogy and it's unrelated.

So I sell knife intended for cooking purpose but I am not responsible for any harm or death it caused. If you cut yourself, sorry your fault. If you stabbed someone, sorry not my fault. But it is my fault if my knife contains harmful metallic chemical that spreads to food you're chopping with.

 

[jillio]

car accidents are caused by drivers... Not manufacturers nor car dealerships. That is the case of driver error... Not manufacturer's negligence. If you're selling the products that cause harm/death... Well that is illegal. Your car example is a very poor analogy and it's unrelated.

So i sell knife intended for cooking purpose but i am not responsible for any harm or death it caused. If you cut yourself, sorry your fault. If you stabbed someone, sorry not my fault. But it is my fault if my knife contains harmful metallic chemical that spreads to food you're chopping with.

bingo!

 

[Jiro]

oh yea - if you want to use car example related to this thread.... try Firestone tires

 

[jillio]

oh yea - if you want to use car example related to this thread.... try Firestone tires

Or the case in the 70's over the Pinto. Both of those would be accurrate comparisons.

 

[Jiro]

Or the case in the 70's over the Pinto. Both of those would be accurrate comparisons.

I had to google it and I was appalled. very appalled. Found it from wiki

Ford was aware of this design flaw but allegedly refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 ($57 today, allowing for inflation) repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits, in what became known as the Ford Pinto memo.

the Pinto Memo

Thus, the costs for fixing the Pinto was $121 million, while settling cases where injuries occur was only $50 million. With such a difference in costs, Ford decided to manufacture and market the Pinto without fuel tank modifications.

What would you do? Why?

my answer - HELL NO. Whoever made that kind of decision has no conscience!

 

[Jiro]

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Trade-Offs-Introduction-Economic-Reasoning-Social/dp/0226902250/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231689394&sr=8-1"]Trade-Offs: An Introduction to Economic Reasoning and Social Issues[/ame]

sounds like it's an interesting book. I should rent it from library

 

[jillio]

I had to google it and I was appalled. very appalled. Found it from wiki



the Pinto Memo


my answer - HELL NO. Whoever made that kind of decision has no conscience!

Yes, it was absolutely horrible! And a perfect example of why we need regulation and accountability in manufactured products.

 

[jillio]

Trade-Offs: An Introduction to Economic Reasoning and Social Issues

sounds like it's an interesting book. I should rent it from library

Does sound interesting. I'm sure many people would be amazed to discover that profit margins take priority over human life in many, many cases.

 

[Jiro]

Does sound interesting. I'm sure many people would be amazed to discover that profit margins take priority over human life in many, many cases.

such as...... McDonald! and Tobacco Industry!

 

[jillio]

such as...... McDonald! and Tobacco Industry!

There you go.

 

[Berry]

that's true. Looks like we're having another unreasonable McCarthyism-like fear.

.

And I thought I was the only one who saw that similarity.

But as someone else pointed out: FEAR breeds power for the fear mongers.

I think we will see a lot more of this.

And someday you and I may regret having posted our opinions about it in an open forum such as this.

 

[Berry]

If this law doesn't get changed, it will be disaster for mom-and-pop businesses, thrift stores that serve low-income families, and low-income families with children.

Big retailers can afford the testing, and upper-income families can afford new clothing.

Goodwill and other used clothing stores will quit selling children's clothing. Where will low-income families buy clothing for their children?

I'm not against testing for hazards. But I believe the testing should be done at the point of production, not at the retail level. The companies that produce the fabrics, yarns, buttons, threads, snaps, zippers, trims, etc., should be required to test their products. The materials that go into toys and children's furnishings should be tested at the point of manufacture of raw materials. The suppliers of inks, papers, and binding materials should be tested instead of testing individual books.

Since this is a federal mandate with no grandfathering-in period, there should at least be a tax break for those industries who have to buy the testing equipment and services.

If the government really has the safety of the consumer at heart, then it should make this process as easy and affordable as possible.

This pretty much sums up a lot of my thinking, but I'd like to add a point.

When something is needed and wanted -- and there is an easily obtainable supply somewhere -- Black markets will spring up.

So Momma can't afford $25 for a new toy, and she can't buy the one at the second hand store for a $1, but the drug dealer on the corner has a new sideline, "Banned toys, $5 each."

 

[jillio]

This pretty much sums up a lot of my thinking, but I'd like to add a point.

When something is needed and wanted -- and there is an easily obtainable supply somewhere -- Black markets will spring up.

So Momma can't afford $25 for a new toy, and she can't buy the one at the second hand store for a $1, but the drug dealer on the corner has a new sideline, "Banned toys, $5 each."

Ah, there's the rub. If the toy is on the shelf new, then it has already been tested as safe re: lead and phalate content. Therefore, the one on the shelf in the second hand store will be available to her as well.